In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"John Barnard" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mar 7, 7:56 pm, ka6uup wrote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...ity.Blogs&Cont.
..
A tiny minority. The vast majority of climate-competent scientists
agree global warming is man-made and is a serious emergency. Sure
there are crooked oil-industry scientists just like there were crooked
tobacco industry scientists. There's a lot of oil money for lying to
the public by denying the fact of human-caused global warming.

At any rate, it's almost beyond question that humans are causing it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...5332BU20090404


Anyone who thinks that 6 billion people can't have an effect on
this planet need to learn how to think!

Every industry tends to play up the good and play down the bad.
You'd be surprised at how often that really happens.

Part of the problem is that humans, as a species, tend to
egocentricity. Anything else is based upon what we as individuals
find appealing. We really have trouble with the concept of there
being 6 billion others that all add up to cause global change. If
population continues to grow at the rate it has for the past 50 years
(it's doubled in that time), there will likely be a vast increase in
pollution levels (both air and water) and a severe shortage of food
to feed everyone. The planet has only so many resources, and unless
we have developed FTL space travel, once those are gone, so are we..
Egocentric yes. The world is a big place and we are nowhere near having
to many people. Education and culture are the key to managing
population. The third world nations have the population boom. Once
their standard of living is higher having big families to survive will
become a thing of the past as it has in all the advanced nations. The
world population will then stabilize.
What makes you think that any country which has a high level of pressure
on its current cropland land will have the time to have such an increase
in the standard living to come into existence before having to decide
which elements of its population survives or dies? There have been
enough examples of the effects of catastrophic droughts on countries.
One failed crop harvest is all it takes.

China would be the best example.

Chinas hasn't had a catastrophic crop failure in decades and the
standard of living in China's rural areas (where the bulk of the
population still resides to the tune of 55% - 60%) is dismal compared to
the larger cities. China instituted population control well in advance
of its recent prosperity so that negates any sort of wealth-population
control. Couple that with sex-selective abortions which has created an
immense gender-imbalance which helps to slow population growth and the
wealth-population issue less important to the other considerations. In
the case of India and China it's far too late for wealth-population to
have any real effect. If those 2 countries suffer simultaneous
catastrophic crop losses they'll walk all over their smaller neighbours
for food.


The problem is the liberal elite that want to make this an issue. Keep
swallowing the liberal line and where that gets you is limits on the
number of kids you can have, limits on what you can own, limits on your
use of transportation, on energy use of any type, but not for them of
course, as the "elite" that make these decisions in your life will not
be subject to these limitations.

Only gluttons fear limits. Which, in your case, doesn't surprise me!

Only idiots like yourself continually project their fears and weaknesses
upon other like you just did. When are you going to learn that a subject
like "gluttony" that you just brought up comes from you as a unprovoked
attack.

Play up the victim image, Kim-il Telemundoh!

I'm not a victim you twit.

If I was talking about hoarding food or eating all the time then
you would be making commentary about it as a subject already under
discussion.

You need to grab a dictionary or thesaurus as see that "gluttony" refers
to more that food. But such a thing is well beyond capacity to
comprehend. But thank you for showing us that you a glutton for punishment.

You are just confusing my ability to understand with your pathetic
communication skills.

Since you brought this up out the blue this means it is an
internal issue with you not me. Sort of the way a shrink uses ink blots
to get you to talk about internal things that are an issue with you.
That make any sense to you?

It figures that you would refer to an useless test but you do seem to
have good familiarity with it.

No, what figures is your inability to understand or comprehend. My
mistake is attempting to explain something to a person incapable of
understanding.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California