----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Stott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:53 PM
Subject: [canals-list] Re: Fwd: Transport in the Green Manifesto
>
> If you don't believe the evidence for global warming, just think of
> the logic. Several billion of us suddenly started throwing increasing
> amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. We've been doing it now for,
> what, 150 years. Don't you think that might have an effect on the
> system? And don't forget cutting down the forests and increased
> desertification, which is changing the global albedo.
Nope, sorry, the human race just isn't that significant. 150 years? the
earth is millions of years old. And the ecosystem is *immense*.
Greens love to think they can control the natural environment. Always
culling some species and cossetting others, trying to prove they are in
control...
This is also verging on "the precautionary principle" a green tenet which
says that if you can't prove beyond doubt that something will have no
harmful effect you mustn't do it. This is of course impossible. If you want
some fun, ask a green wind turbine fan why we shouldn't apply the
precautionary principle to them, on the basis that you are extracting
gigawatts of energy directly from the wind, how might *that* affect the
climate patterns, and watch them squirm and bullshit...
>
> Oh yeah, there are other problems from population increase, too. Like
> extinctions.
You might like to know that most if not all the species extinction data
comes from one study. The bloke "measured" the number of species in a
certain area of rainforest, decided what percentage would be rendered
extinct by the loss of that area (he admits he chose the figure because it
"seemed about right") then multiplied by the WWF deafforestation figure.
Which figure, incidentally, does not count regenerated forest, and assumes
that any part of the earth's surface which *could* support rainforest, at
one time *did*.
Even at that they are discovering new species faster than they can declare
them extinct. And in fact they just don't *know*. Look at the Coeolocanth.
Scientists didn't know it existed. Then they found out about it. Then they
discovered that wherever there are native fishermen and the right
conditions, they are caught. So they decided it was rare and are trying to
stop the fishermen catching them. Remember these people's well paid cushy
jobs depend on this stuff.
>And over-crowded and over-used services.
Entirely fixeable. There is no shortage of land or resources, either
nationally or globally. What exactly did you have in mind?
> And territorial wars.
Organised religion is the usual excuse for that one.
> And social conflict from migration.
Usually cause by the above.
> And .....
And?
> No more than one kid per woman globally looks like a really good idea
> to me. But perhaps a bit more gently than China has pursued it ...
Most of the earth's surface is *empty*
--
Niall
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
