Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

JosephKK <quiettechblue@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:6raj941kk3m3km6uu7s3t7ic6i031jh1tg@xxxxxxx:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:09:11 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:cfle94t86mro33350e3n8ojihdb87dfnif@xxxxxxx:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:23:43 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Kris Krieger wrote:

[snipped]
It just seems to me that the bickering about global warming
distracts people from taking real, current action to solve
well-known problems...

Absolutely.


and just who benefits from that, I wonder?

Politicicians and unrepresentative tiny pressure groups.

Graham


There was an article in today's paper about a neighborhood in
Pakistan where people are suffering because of the recent jump in
the price of food. One thing they are doing is selling their kidneys
to feed their kids. THAT is a *real* consequence of AGW theory.

John



No, sorry, that's not a consequence of a theory; you place far too
much power in one theory. Food prices go up becasue of multiple
factors - fuel costs, desertification, deforestation that screws up
both weather patterns and soil-fertility, increased population which
leads to increased demand on everything, *plus* the arrogance of a few
countries behaving as tho' the rest of the world is supposed to
conserve and scrimp so as to allow themselves, the Chosen Few, to
squander at will.

AGW theory, as you put it, is just a scapegoat, an excuse to do
nothing to try to correct known, real, current problems.


And that means that it seems to have been converted (hijacked) into
politics as usual, find something to divide and distract while
politicians push on other agendas.


*BINGO*

And those agendas are seldom as simple as media reports make them seem.
Ethanol is the bugaboo mentioned above, so let's look at it. We know
already that ethanol can be derived from all sorts of non-food sources,
including silage, and plants that will grow on marginal land. Is ethanol
itself automatically a crappy idea? No. What *is* a crappy idea is
using not only food crops, but worse!, food crops that require rather
intensive agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides, irrigations, mechanized
harvesting, etc.). So the *real* question is not whether ethanol should
be totally sh*tcanned, but rather, how did we get from "silage and
weeds" as ethanol sources, to "food crops"? Follow The Money. Follow
the Benefits. And I'm quite sure that, lower-level partisan sniping
aside, the beneficiaries will be one or two Mega-Global-Corps, and a few
powerful supporters thereof.

And it is to *their* benefit to have most poeple in the nation kept so
divided by minor political differences that they forget that these issues
are *not* partisan issues, they are *national* issues.

We really do need to come together, but there are far, *FAR* too many
people who benefit by keeping Americans divided over party shennanigans.
Anad any time we - any/all of us! - allow ourselves to be suckered into
forgetting we're Americans, and see only "red OR blue", we just play
right into the hands of those peole who don't give a crap about us, or
for that matter about America, but rather, only about increasing their
own personal stockpiles fo wealth and power.




.

Quantcast