Hey, I really like that one. One more reason to vote Republican! You should post it on the Bushisms thread.

You and the hate-rhetoric class-warfare democrat party are absolutely 100% right on the money...We Republicans have secret sessions (think Montgomery Burns) where we strategize how we will poison the water supply and use up all the oil. What we plan to do then is so sufficiently pollute and destroy the atmosphere and water that we can no longer exist on planet Earth...The problem we are having is how we stay alive and all the poor die...But we are working on it.:rolleyes:

Exxxxxcellleeeeennnttt!!!!

Mul, you think there's no problem and that Exxon and Dow Chemicals love you more than your own mother. So now go to your nearest river, catch some fish, scrape off the lesions and chow down. After a hearty, healthy meal like that your gonna want some fresh air, run a hose to your Subaru's tailpipe, sit in the drivers seat, rev 'er up and start sucking. It won't kill you - cause you know there's no problem!

Flood designations are based on statistical averages, not on the number of years between big floods. The "100 year" flood zone really means that, based on past data, that each year there is a 1:100 chance of there being a flood during that year. Obviously its unpredictable & reliant on the accuracy of past data. It doesn't mean that theres a guaranteed flood at a regular 100 year interval. Not sure if flooding is a directly correspondant with 'global warming' anyway?

Oh yeah, the greens are just like the Nazi's (which I had figured was what you meant), because the greens are socialist (usually) and are on the slippery slope to communism/fascism/totalitarianism. etc

To quote Mussolini (and no, I'm not smart, I just found it on the internet):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Fascism_vs._socialism

Not even the guy who invented it thinks it is socialism. Have a click through some of those wikipedia links and you will hopefully come to the same conclusion that I did - what you are scared of is totalitarianism, which requires none of communism, socialism or fascism. It crops up on its own.

The Green Party is never going to get there.

You can't just rule out environmental issues - how many of you would argue that Southern California does not have an air polution problem (even with the stringent rules)?

Do you really believe that businesses would EVER self regulate from a polution perspective? Sure, some might. A few might bow to consumer pressure. But overall, pollution needs to be regulated against.

I've also not found anyone prepared to believe that we have an unending supply of fossil fuels.

Worrying about ozone holes (which we have - 10-15 min burn time in the sun at the height of summer for fair skinned people) and global warming is a pretty logical next step. There is enough evidence for me to prefer the idea of doing something about it that hoping for the best...

Ariane - I dunno, but it wouldn't be cool if the 100 year flood zone became the 70 year flood zone, or the 30 year zone.

cool, you clarified it a bit.

I actually know the type of people that you mean - I liken them to the semi-anarchists at Animal Liberation Front or any of the other radical left (and their equivalent right) organisations. Geez, or the ones who want humans to die out to allow Gaia (that's earth to you and me) to return to its equilibrium.

However, the average environmentalist is not a "liar" (is this your favourite word?). In my experience, they generally have pretty good intentions. If you can't accept that they may have a point then, a position I used to be in, then I think you have your head in the sand.

The will be a problem at some stage - whether it is in our lifetime (I doubt it), our children's (I also doubt it), or their children's (maybe so?), who knows.

This is self-evident to me - why is it not for you?

The problem is that these hard-leftists are the ones who love to rise to power, and then steer the ship way off course.

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS." -- Earth First! Newsletter

"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

Human life span is increasing and the world forests are getting larger.

Face it. The "rise to power" for a hardcore environmental activist doesn't elevate them all that much. The organizations you are posting, as far as I know, have no more say in government policy than these guys do http://www.patriotvocals.info (a site you linked to the other day).

Are you afraid of groups that speak their mind & have an agenda other than yours? Should they be censured by the Government?

Not many American military and ultra-right wingers engaging in terrorism and burning flags...Unlike the far left wack-jobs.

lalalala worlds forests are getting larger lalalala worlds forests are getting larger lalalala worlds forests are getting larger lalala. Look, now its actually becoming true.

UN Food and Agriculture Organization

FAO Forestry

January 22, 2001

Net loss of 9 million hectares of forests per year despite increases in plantations

Rome, 22 January -- The global rate of net forest loss has slowed to 9 million hectares per year, according to the latest global forest assessment by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The assessment shows a rate 20 percent lower than the global figure previously reported in 1995. Forests are disappearing most rapidly in Africa and Latin America, whereas in Asia, the reduction of natural forests is largely compensated by new plantation forests. In Europe and North America the forest area is increasing, according to the FAO survey. Overall, the world contains around 6000 square meters of forest for each person, which is reducing by 12 square meters every year.

These figures have been published on the FAO Forestry Web site (www.fao.org/forestry) and will be officially presented in FAO's State of the World's Forests 2001 due to be released on the occasion of the forthcoming session of FAO Committee on Forestry, in Rome on 12 March . The Committee on Forestry (COFO) is FAO's leading forum for international discussions on forest policy and technical issues, and it will be attended by more than 100 FAO member countries.

The current survey is the latest in global forest assessments by FAO spanning a 50-year period and the first of its kind to be implemented using a uniform global definition of forest. The findings reveal a diverse picture, where some countries still have very high levels of deforestation (mainly conversion of forests to other land uses) while others show significant increases in forest cover through plantations or natural re-growth.

"These differences", according to FAO Director General Dr. Jacques Diouf, "cannot be explained by population pressure on forests alone. Rather they are apparently the results of economic developments at large, and national forest or land use policies. Therefore, forestry surveys should address, on a sustainable basis, further development of the forestry sector which constitutes a backbone of world food security."

Commenting on the new global assessment on forests, Dr. Hosny El-Lakany, Assistant Director General (Forestry Department), said: "Although remote sensing has increased the information about forests in general, field surveys remain the main source of knowledge about forest dynamics and forest change. FAO is now addressing the need for improved quality and relevance in forestry information in new proposals for future forest assessments to be discussed at COFO in March".

Damnit. That was working


:rolleyes:

Does Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?

Or how about Orlando Bosch?

There are many others but i don't have the time to do the research that you are obviously too lazy to perform yourself before you make your numerous erronious posts.

So do you classify Prince Phillip as a far left wack job terrorist flag burner?

Part (a) is actually a problem (consuming more resources for longer). Part (b) - I dunno - it appears this is debateable but more importantly, I believe it is a response to environmentalists wanting more forests, plus a lot of plantations to replace that which was removed (and will be logged again).

I'm happy with the latter, but not when it is rainforest which takes many decades to grow and is replaced by softwood which take 15 years.

ubiquity0 is right - the truely hardcore groups have little power and will never gain significant power. You will find that that majority of environmentalists see the extremists as harmful to their position.

More importantly, just because there are a few wackos with an ultra-green environmentalist viewpoint doesn't mean that there isn't a problem worthy of debate.

Bush wouldn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol because it would disadvantage the US economically (at the expense of non-complying developing nations). While he has a point, I don't see him rushing out with an alternative. And we both know he won't - possibly because he has the same group of people working on collating environmental studies as worked on collating WMD evidence ;) Cheap shot, again ;).