Page 5 of 312 FirstFirst ... 345671555105 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 4676
  1. #61
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,234
    Back in my days, we had a solution for dribblers. It involved simply a gun!
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  2. #62
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383

    The CONVENIENT DISTRACTION !

    And whilst the brainwashed masses soak up the propaganda,they are conveniently distracted from the really dangerous environmental issues like POLLUTION !,ie. the millions of tons of toxic waste poured into the seas,waters and air ,and the vanishing rainforests(you know the earth's lungs! - the ones that use the CO2 to produce OXYGEN!) .

    It wont matter if the earth reaches critical over heating,as we will have choked ourselves on pollution long before that.

  3. #63
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,434
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    "The team's findings don't point to an external influence, such as an increase in solar radiation, that some climate-change skeptics have suggested may be behind Earth's recent warming, Geissler says."
    Just shows how the AGW alarmists will explain away contrary data that might reduce their ability to regulate our lives more.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  4. #64
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,434
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    You must be joking. You're going to just trust poachers to preserve species rather than just wipe out one and move on to the next?
    Nope, because the owners of animals and plants have a monetary incentive to protect them from extinction. That's why Wollemi pines are likely to have no trouble surviving.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    One of your examples is rather bad, since the protection of the bald eagle has just led to it's removal from the endangered list for the first time.
    OK, so I am a couple of weeks out of date with one of the many "endangered" species. And how do you know it was government policies that protected this one species? This is typical of the government-knows-best elitist crowd and their allies in the Leftmedia: exaggerate the successes, and in response to failures advocate even more money thrown at the same failed policies!

    That page also had the usual unproven nonsense about the harm of DDT, allegedly thinning bird shells. But the ban has cost millions of human lives to malaria, which suits some of the ecofascists who think the world is overpopulated anyway.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 17-07-2007 at 03:51 PM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  5. #65
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    That page also had the usual unproven nonsense about the harm of DDT, allegedly thinning bird shells. But the ban has cost millions of human lives to malaria, which suits some of the ecofascists who think the world is overpopulated anyway.
    DDT is used extensively in Africa, where the harmful effects are often thought to be outweighed by the necessity of controlling malaria. Where is your evidence that DDT bans has cost millions of lives?

  6. #66
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    And property rights protect endangered species:
    Marketable, easily-bred "flagship species", sure, but many of the thousands of threatened species out there do not appear to be marketable in any significant way. (If anyone thinks otherwise and would like to splash out half a million dollars to try to buy some land in South Hobart and hopefully save a drab little 2.5 millimetre wide snail, I'd be very interested to hear from them!)

    And property rights protect endangered species: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Dr Robert Murphy asks:

    Pop quiz: What's the difference between bald eagles, white rhinos, and giant pandas on one hand, versus talking parrots, dairy cows, and thoroughbred horses on the other? Answer #1: All the former are endangered species, while the latter are in plentiful supply. Answer #2: It is illegal to trade in the former, while the latter are bought and sold on the open market.
    Correlation is not causation. It can be at least as easily argued that the latter are bought and sold on the open market because they are too secure to be possibly imperilled by such a process, while the former are not available for trade because of the potential risks to the species of inept attempts to profit from them.

    Spix's Macaw is a useful illustrative case. It's apparently extinct in the wild with two-thirds of the several dozen captive specimens being kept in one private collection. But while that private collection is now critical to keeping the species alive and hopefully someday reintroducing it, trapping for private collections is one of the factors that wiped the bird out of the wild environment in the first place.

    By the way, if we're discussing threatened species it is always useful to distinguish between a threatened species and an endangered species. The two terms are not synonymous and the latter denotes a much higher level of risk. The Bald Eagle was removed from Endangered status in 1995 but remained listed as threatened.

    That page also had the usual unproven nonsense about the harm of DDT, allegedly thinning bird shells.
    Ironically the bald eagle is one of the species in which banning of DDT has been most strongly argued to be linked to population recovery. I find this quite credible as if persecution and habitat loss were the only causes of decline, it would be very surprising if the species' population multiplied by >20 in only 40 years.

  7. #67
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,434
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    DDT is used extensively in Africa, where the harmful effects are often thought to be outweighed by the necessity of controlling malaria.
    The people in Africa don't tend to agree with relatively disease-free Western environmentalists imposing bans. See for example Why don’t they value human life? and Bring Back DDT and Malaria is often deadly, and even when not, it is crippling, but the environmentalists, like most leftists, aren't the ones who suffer from the policies they impose on others.

    Any harmful effects are from overuse, not from spraying inner walls of huts. As far as direct harm to humans, soldiers were regularly dusted with the stuff, which virtually eradicated typhus.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Where is your evidence that DDT bans has cost millions of lives?
    See above. Where is your evidence that DDT has taken a single human life?
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  8. #68
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Correlation is not causation.
    Would apply to Pax's example too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    It can be at least as easily argued that the latter are bought and sold on the open market because they are too secure to be possibly imperilled by such a process, while the former are not available for trade because of the potential risks to the species of inept attempts to profit from them.
    It could be, but whether soundly is another matter. Hardly anything is more inept than government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Ironically the bald eagle is one of the species in which banning of DDT has been most strongly argued to be linked to population recovery. I find this quite credible as if persecution and habitat loss were the only causes of decline, it would be very surprising if the species' population multiplied by >20 in only 40 years.
    Interesting. So much for the "Silent Spring" idea, where it was supposed to be a world without songbirds thanx to DDT. Ronald Bailey agrees in DDT, Eggshells, and Me: Cracking open the facts on birds and banned pesticides, but says:

    Banning DDT saved thousands of raptors over the past 30 years, but outright bans and misguided fears about the pesticide cost the lives of millions of people who died of insect-borne diseases like malaria. The 500 million people who come down with malaria every year might well wonder what authoritarian made that decision.

    Probably why he says he's been accused of being both a dupe of the Greenies and corporate stooge.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  9. #69
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Would apply to Pax's example too.
    Which example?

    It could be, but whether soundly is another matter. Hardly anything is more inept than government.
    In the specific area of conservation management governments have been responsible over time for both incredible failures and remarkable successes, but species that make it on to threatened species lists and become protected by well-resourced governments practically never go extinct unless they were already basket cases.

    Under the heading of inept private attempts to profit I should have explicitly included those privateers who are actually all too good at making money, but have a very short-term focus about doing so. The sort who would rather kill a rhino for its horn than catch it and try to breed more, for example. That's one attitude you won't generally encounter from governments - at least, not anymore.

    Interesting. So much for the "Silent Spring" idea, where it was supposed to be a world without songbirds thanx to DDT.
    Probably the start of the modern environmentalist tradition of exaggeration and dire forecasts right there. Thanks for the link to the Bailey article, which has the feel of a reasonable summary; I have heard of his Ecoscam book but haven't read it.

  10. #70
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    You must be joking. You're going to just trust poachers to preserve species rather than just wipe out one and move on to the next?

    One of your examples is rather bad, since the protection of the bald eagle has just led to it's removal from the endangered list for the first time.
    Agree. It's amazing what magical powers the right wingers ascribe to capitalism.

    On a related matter, I remember as a young reporter reporting on the greenhouse effect many years ago, and the business lobby or their fellow travellers relentlessly ridiculing the whole notion. Now, belatedly, after wasting a decade or so, they finally admit the phenomenon but, of course, it's not our fault, which is code for, let's do nothing about it.

    I must admit that I'm glad I'm 41 rather than 4, because I have almost zero faith in the capacity of people to act co-operatively and intelligently on the scale needed to solve a problem like this. The rate at which people lap up crap like the ABC documentary shows this. As my old man used to warn me: bullshit makes the world go round.
    cheers - paulb

  11. #71
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,434
    Quote Originally Posted by paulb
    Agree. It's amazing what magical powers the right wingers ascribe to capitalism.
    Nothing magic about having produced the most prosperous economies of all time. Rather, left-wingers ascribe magic to the powers of governments to plan economies, despite the evidence that while captalism results in unequal wealth, socialism results in equal poverty. Mises pointed out long ago that no group of elites could possibly have all the information that millions of free buyers or sellers could have, with information on scarcity and cost of production automatically conveyed by prices [Economic calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth].

    Quote Originally Posted by paulb
    On a related matter, I remember as a young reporter reporting on the greenhouse effect many years ago, and the business lobby or their fellow travellers relentlessly ridiculing the whole notion.
    The fallacy here, as pointed out before on this board, is equating capitalism or the free market with the business lobby. But free market advocates from Adam Smith on have had nothing good to say about big business, which is often only too happy to interefere with the free market to suit itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulb
    Now, belatedly, after wasting a decade or so,
    In the 70s, they might have wasted a decade or so deciding whether urgent means were needed to stop global cooling ....

    Quote Originally Posted by paulb
    they finally admit the phenomenon but, of course, it's not our fault, which is code for, let's do nothing about it.
    Or, let's not rush into economically crippling measures that may have little climatic benefit and even less benefit to humanity. Especially when some of the loudest screamers about global warming refuse to lead by example, e.g. alGore with his jetsetting lifestyle and home that uses 20 times more energy than the average, Madonna telling the audience to jump up and down to demonstrate their feelings about global warming, before she returns to her mansion and fleet of private jets ...

    Quote Originally Posted by paulb
    I must admit that I'm glad I'm 41 rather than 4, because I have almost zero faith in the capacity of people to act co-operatively and intelligently on the scale needed to solve a problem like this.
    Me neither. And I have even less faith in the Anointed knowing what's best for the rest of us. That's why I prefer genuine free market to government coercion.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 18-07-2007 at 11:05 AM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #72
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom
    ian, no one is disputing global warming as fact, i dispute that it is man made
    Hi Ax

    I wish I had the spare time you and other BBers have to debate such issues.

    Surely you can't dispute the obvious facts:
    1. Primarily through burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing
    2. These activities are man-made
    3. CO2 traps heat and causes surface temperatures to rise

    The perfect example is Venus, with a virtually-pure CO2 atmosphere and surface temperature higher than the daylight side of Mercury

    There may be other factors involved, but that's no justification for ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away

    It is noteworthy that California (the world's sixth-largest economy) has already legislated for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 80% by 2050. It is heartening that our next federal government is at least targeting a 60% reduction by 2050.

  13. #73
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray
    The perfect example is Venus, with a virtually-pure CO2 atmosphere and surface temperature higher than the daylight side of Mercury
    Yeah, all those blasted SUVs and jetsetting leftists on Venus ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray
    It is noteworthy that California (the world's sixth-largest economy) has already legislated for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 80% by 2050.
    Oh, very easy to enforce something >40 years in the future. Of course, by this time the alarmists will be braying about the coming ice age again.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  14. #74
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Yeah, all those blasted SUVs and jetsetting leftists on Venus ...
    Of course, in Jono's universe it's only lefties who fly in jets and drive SUVs...

  15. #75
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,434
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Of course, in Jono's universe it's only lefties who fly in jets and drive SUVs...
    Nope, in the real world, many of the shrillest global warming alarmists are limousine lefties who jet-set everywhere to preach at us, sometimes in their own private jets, then return to their energy-guzzling mansions.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Evangelism and Climate Change
    By Ian Murray in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-04-2017, 11:24 AM
  2. Climate Change (read bottom up)
    By antichrist in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 01:00 PM
  3. Climate Change Is Irreversable ??
    By Bruce Oates in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28-01-2009, 09:55 PM
  4. The Death of Climate Change Consensus
    By Spiny Norman in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-12-2007, 11:38 AM
  5. Pentagon Report on Climate Change
    By Cat in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21-06-2004, 10:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •