Quote:
Originally posted by rgr22j
Ah, much better. Thank you for remaining civil. It is interesting you define a fanatic as one signing petitions in mobs denying science. In this case, aren't the ones in the 19,500 strong mob scientists themselves, in part sponsored by the National Academy of Scientists? This puts them in an ironic paradox, scientists trying to deny science.
I agree. Safe, not sorry. I would rather we take reasonable, measured responses to curb environmental damage and find that we saved people's jobs and livelihoods rather than ignore the data because of fear and find ourselves in economic disaster. As I mentioned in my post discussing the Democratic candidates for president in 2004 (my blind fanaticism again), history is always the best teacher.
In the 1990s, there was a huge campaign against fur, and the result of the backlash was a massive drop in demand for fur worldwide. The hardest hit was small village in Canada who for decades, by all accounts, as humanely as possible, made their lives trapping and selling fur. The drop destroyed their livelihood and just recently they were debating allowing an oil company to lay an oil pipeline through their village, possibly disrupting the natural wildlife. This is described in the New York Times, a lesson in making reasonable, measured responses instead of foisting impulsive, emotional ideology on others.
The New York Times also recently featured the wind energy battle; sure it is clean and renewable energy, but the massive windmills (having seen many in person, they truly are wondrously large) disrupt local wind patterns and quite often hit and kill birds just passing through. What helped solve one environmental problem created another. What should have been a practical and acceptable solution to all parties ended up being ramrodded into law in the name of the "environment" and creating a bigger mess than before. Again, too much politics, not enough science.
Don't come bragging to me about Europe. I will never return to Europe for good reason. Perhaps Europeans, in general, are too far left for their own good? I have participated in politics in almost every continent in the world and I find it rather selfish and conceited to automatically think that Europeans are the "centrists" and Americans are right wing extremists. But that is another discussion.
Europeans do not have a higher rate of living; ask your neighbors the Swedes what their government says of the relative rate of living amongst the opprossed and poorest third of Americans (African-Americans) and middle class Swedes.
I am off on a tangent, though. Originally, you called me Bush-boy, and I merely pointed out that I consistenly supported his opponents, a fact of which I have announced in these forums many times. It would be an oxymoron to be an Bush-opponent-supporter-yet-Bush-fanatic, now wouldn't it?
-- Alvin
|
-> Norway is not a member of the EU, I am a Norwegian, not a member of some far-fetched megelomaniac idea of a federal Europe (which I believe is what they are planning). Norway has nothing to answer for European problems.
-> sure, windmills can be ugly, but aestetics is not as important as the enviroment in my book. Coal-plants or nuclear plants aren't pretty either. You need to spot the difference between minor local problems and global consequense. The world's temperature are more important than a farmer's backyard. You have to scramble some eggs... Noone is finding perfect solutions here, If we would, we wouldn't be arguing would we? It just so happens new alternative energy such as wind, wave, solar, boi and so on are the best known source of energy when it comes to global emissions.
-> fur has shit-all to do with enviromentalism, that is animal rights, I don't give a shit about PETA if that's your consern.
-> The enviroment is too important to be ignored. And possible solutions to the likely occurance of increased global warming is way to important to be neglected on behalf of politicians and scientists who lack the minerals to face the challenge. The possible loss is far too great.
-> I trust the UN on this point, and I still want an answer to what profit they might gain from lying to the world about this. Any suggestions?