I won't take it personally :) And I agree with most of what you just posted. I'll have another go at making myself clear, as I realise I don't always communicate well what I have tried to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56
If you bother to study history we have always since the industrial revolution and possibly before reached a point where the community has jacked up and forced polluters to back off. It happened in Victorian Britain, it happened in the 70's, it's happened all along. The notion put by the rabid mentalists that "it's time to start doing something about the enviroment" is pure absurdity. If you pull them up they admit to previous enviromental controls (and sometimes claim credit for them) but they continue to try and perpetuate the misinformation. Obviously the socialists don't have a monopoly on propoganda and misinformation but over the last 30 years they have become uncommonly prolific and expert at it. I saw a story on the news the other day about 2 stroke outboards and the proposal to ban their sale in queensland. Every piece of information in the story was incorrect. Every single piece.
I made a point of mentioning some of things being done or that could be done above. It would be really nice to see more solutions put forward and debated rather than the tow the line stance by our government and media. I suppose if you give people choices they might start to doubt your rhetoric or, heaven forbid, think for themselves. This is the essence of my objection to the global warming propoganda. It's based on fear and obedience. They don't want solutions, they don't care who they hurt, they just want obedience and aceptance.
This is not and never has been a scientific debate. The mentalists bandy about the word to give themselves credibility, and a minority of amoral PhD's will say and do anything for a research grant. This has always been a political debate between an ideaolegy that wants to destroy western civilisation and one that wants to exploit nature until it's obliterated. In the middle are the rational beings looking for a workable compromise, but we get no profile in the media because concensus and agreement make poorer ratings than a good punchup. Barnaby Joyce has learned this and flowered up his speach to get exposure. He is neither fruitcake nor fool, he is representing his constituents as best he can.
In a perfect world we would assess the cost benifit of the options to hand and the likelyhood of sucess of investing in emerging technologies and research, then we would provide information and options to the population to take up as they see fit. That approach would result in real pollution reductions, signifigant and measureable. That ain't no where near what's happening. Instead a few amoral people will make tones of money and the vulnerable and voiceless will get screwed again.
I suppose it's confusing that I refer to the mentalists as the collective of thieves and thick pseudo-socialist/enviromentalists who are so willing to embrace the dogma. It's the people and the process that makes me so angry, not the essential sentiment that looking after our enviroment is a good idea, which in my opinion should be self evident. You need to always remember that the people who get on TV are just another type of politician, always remember that through every word they utter.
As for the world bank/WTO and such you really should watch the "yes men", a movie made some years back by a bunch of activists. Absolutely hysterical, and mostly because as Homer Simpson once famously said "because it's true"...
And xkcd rocks. I remember that frame and laughed long when it was first published. :D
