|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Apr 17, 2009 20:57:28 GMT -5
Geez I missed that little pearl amidst Saunterelle's grains of sand. Thanks for pointing that out TNG. Please provide credible, peer reviewed scientific evidence of 150,000 deaths cause worldwide, annually, by climactic change. And while you are looking around for that, perhaps you'd like to digest this...Malaria was practically eradicated across much of the world by the middle of the 20th century. Then along came Rachel Carson peddling junk science which led to the most effective interdiction agent, DDT, being banned worldwide. Now, according to the CDC in the report I linked... ** At the end of 2004, some 3.2 billion people lived in areas at risk of malaria transmission in 107 countries and territories. ** Between 350 and 500 million clinical episodes of malaria occur every year. ** At least one million deaths occur every year due to malaria. ** About 60% of the cases of malaria worldwide and more than 80% of the malaria deaths worldwide occur in Africa south of the Sahara. One million deaths a year... that's a high price to pay on the altars of junk science and leftist sensibilities. It is that same brand of junk science that got our legislature to ban the use of lead ammo for hunting across nearly all of Southern California because some dimbulbs couldn't figure out how a couple of California Condors died. Their blood showed trace amounts of lead so it just had to be from lead poisoning, so we must act now and ban lead ammo, even though there is zero hard evidence of cause and effect. Do you begin to understand why we don't trust environmentalists who tell us the sky is falling based on..... some silly wild ass guess and a bunch of easily manipulated computer models? |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Apr 18, 2009 0:15:28 GMT -5
Who does the EPA think they are....credible?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Apr 18, 2009 1:12:10 GMT -5
Who does the EPA think they are....credible? They havn't been so far. No, that isn't quite fair. As far as actually cleaning up toxics, limiting pollution, the EPA has done an OK job. But recently, since under Clinton, the EPA has mostly been driven by fringe left fear mongers. Pres Bush tried to rein that in some, but O-BOW-ma seems to be givng free rein again to pursue a purely anti-business agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Apr 20, 2009 14:41:49 GMT -5
Who does the EPA think they are....credible? Riight, who put Lisa Jackson in the head office? And does that person have an agenda? How are those carbon caps looking now? LoL do you SERIOUSLY not see the folly in this? |
|
|
|
Post by joe on Apr 24, 2009 14:12:45 GMT -5
Wow.....crickets...huh.
Truth is painful.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 24, 2009 14:21:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 24, 2009 19:53:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Apr 24, 2009 21:35:17 GMT -5
and back in the 70's noted scientist Paul Ehrlich told us all that we would have mass famine and economic catastrophe due to overpopulation by this point..... WRONG. Astute readers might remember this bit of lunacy on Ehrlich's part.I'm going to see if I can dig up a link to the published EPA report. I'm curious to see the scientific methodology that was used. ETA.... that was easy enough to find. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 24, 2009 22:01:20 GMT -5
and they also said we would be staring down a new ice age too.
the earth is a big friggin' rock that has been around for billions of years. there ain't squat man can do to break it.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 24, 2009 22:07:23 GMT -5
the earth is a big friggin' rock that has been around for billions of years. there ain't squat man can do to break it. You're wrong. We have already "broken" much of it. |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Apr 24, 2009 23:51:16 GMT -5
It is the height of arrogance to think that man is solely responsible for the climate changes we are now experiencing. If there has been one constant in the history of the Earth, or what little we can know of it from our studies, it is that the climate has been varying since the beginning of time.
It is also the height of arrogance to think that man alone can reverse the climate changes we are now experiencing. We can expend trillions of dollars (pocket change to the Obama Administration) but we will only reduce the predicted warming by a degree or so. It would be much more prudent to spend those dollars on making sure that the most vulnerable among us will survive the inevitable changes that are to come.
Of course, this position does not play into the carbon control regime that AlGore and Obama have in mind for us. If you can control carbon, you can control the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Apr 24, 2009 23:55:47 GMT -5
Is it really lunacy? Look at how China got to the point of restricting the birth of baby girls and famine in Africa has been a "norm" for some time now.
I believe saunterelle's original source stemmed from an EPA report.....credible.
|
|
