| |
BGonline.org Forums
Political?
Posted By: Bill Riles In Response To: Political? (Chuck Bower)
Date: Monday, 9 June 2008, at 5:29 p.m.
I didn't bother wasting my time looking at either of the links.
The subject of global warming has become, in extremely large measure, a political football that is vastly agenda driven with no other regard.
Is the earth warming? generally, I think most would concede it is -- though we can disregard the beliefs of the 99% lemming population in the US and higher percentages elsewhere.
Is the earth warming as a result of human activity? and, if so, what proportion results from this activity? Here, the wild divergence and varied opinions erupt.
My observation is that the earth, over its six billion year or so history, has undergone myriads of cycles of heating and cooling, many to much much greater extremes than what we might experience today. Are we to believe that only the current modest warming cycle, if we are indeed in a warming cycle, is a result of human activity? And the other cycles? Might today's cycle be of similar origin to the thousands of the past?
We can go back only thirty years -- a fraction of a nanosecond in the history of the earth -- and many of today's same alarmists on global warming were sounding similar alarms of the coming ice age. Interesting?
I think the vast majority of discussion and activity today on the subject of global warming is stimulated by political, research, and entrepreneurial opportunism. The 'environment' and 'taxes of various types associated thereto' are but a convenient, politically correct path to power and control of lifestyles that has been manipulatively promoted by leftists/libs/socialists/globalists and has been bought hook, line, and sinker by a sympathetic major media who subscribes to the agenda and influences the masses. (see 'obama' for analogy)
Do you not find it interesting and coincidental (among other obvious adjectives) that many of the most vocal alarmists and promoters of 'global warming' have substantial vested interests in associated industries and products? And let us not forget, that many of these same individuals, also have parallel political interests.
Should we be more aware of the environment and conserve more? Absolutely. Should we bankrupt international economies and adversely impact lifestyles around the globe in a futile fight against 'global warming'? I think not. We may as well try to stop the sun from coming up tomorrow.
If your activist side wishes to do something more meaningful, significant, and with a greater impact to the human experience on earth you might work toward limiting the earth's population growth. The resultant strain on food, water, energy and other natural resources will increasingly dwarf other problems on the planet -- the wars/struggles for survival and the massive immigration to more fertile, less arid, and richer areas will make today's immigration problems seem insignificant.
The population growth is unchecked in the poorest, dryest, least fertile, and least stable areas of the world. Utilization of resources and abuse of the environment in these areas make the industrialized world look like Eden. The unchecked, unbridled, and uncontrolled growth in developing countries such as India, China, and Brazil -- with no regard for the environment -- is to be subsidized by the Western world? I think not.
So, in conclusion, I hope the naivete of the treehuggers and disciples of the lib/dem/socialist pied pipers will morph into a rational awareness which balances recognition of conservation and environmental responsibilities against the political and financial agendas of those who would benefit -- in power and in treasure -- from the blind acceptance of their alarms.
Now, can we just go back to backgammon and resume the truce?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.