<p>
Garland, can you point me to the source for this?</p>
<p>"Proof, please? Note that expert witness fees from 10 years ago does not equate to “gets”.</p>
<p>what is the point? You still will be a loyal fan of Linzen, or Lagett or Mitchy.</p>
<p>Go on the net and find it yourself.</p>
<p>You have to make it worth my while to go through the trouble of humoring you. :)</p>
<p>"Note that expert witness fees from 10 years ago does not equate to “gets”</p>
<p>Perhaps you have forgotten the saying. Let me refresh.</p>
<p>“Once a whore always a whore”</p>
<p>So what will happen (is happening) to us is the same thing that will happen to the polars bears. More people will occupy a smaller space in a warmer environment. The combination of proximity and heat will result in more sex. More sex will result in more progeny. More progeny will result in more demand on the food supply, grown in a smaller space. Population outstrips food supply, and greater crowding results in increased disease. Population collapses. Real estate costs go down.</p>
<p>Hillary will fix it. ;)</p>
<p>Unless Captain Trips hits first.</p>
<p>“So what will happen (is happening) to us is the same thing that will happen to the polars bears. More people will occupy a smaller space in a warmer environment. The combination of proximity and heat will result in more sex. More sex will result in more progeny. More progeny will result in more demand on the food supply, grown in a smaller space. Population outstrips food supply, and greater crowding results in increased disease. Population collapses. Real estate costs go down.”</p>
<p>You are a roll…continue expanding</p>
<p>Well, perhaps the best response to global warming is to give birth control to 11-year-olds…</p>
<p>Simba; to expand the scenario, there are other possibilities.</p>
<p>Higher concentration of people in warmer climates mean less expense required for communications and transportation. Mass transit is used more. Rural lands become used more for agricultural required via irrigation, desalinization, etc… and not used for habitation. Able to concentrate resources to the people more efficiently. Social changes occur that actually reduce the population through voluntary birth control and other social evolutions.</p>
<p>The point is, some people try and take a current realization and apply the same factors to a speculation. That can’t be done. There is no way in the world that any scientist, researcher, statistician, etc… would ever make the claim that; "If scenario (A) happens in this environment, and the environment expands 5 fold, that scenario (B) will automatically expand 5 fold. There are too many social and economic variables involved to control mankind’s socio-evolution.</p>
<p>The only truth is; if mankind has to adapt to nature and realign his/her social existence, then their social environment too will change. What change that occurs is not a fact. As long as an environment is adaptable, species will adapt. If it isn’t adaptable to a species, for whatever reason, then that species will become extinct. Any other theory about adaptation is simply nothing more than a guess.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s true. But if we want to keep the lifestyles that we enjoy, it would behoove us to make whatever changes we can NOW, such as advancing the technology of renewable energies, before we are forced to give them up just to survive.</p>
<p>mini, your Malthusian argument has been done before. Remember how there was supposed to be mass famine in the 70’s and 80’s? I think I am now old enough where the panic-du-jour is on repeat. Maybe that’s one reason why I have trouble getting worked up about global warming. As Rosanne Rosannadanna said, “Well it just goes to show you, it’s always something.”</p>
<p>I’m quite aware of that (I thought you’d appreciate the irony). I’m actually much more interested in the polar bears…(and providing birth control to 11-year-olds on its own merits).</p>
<p>Every time I go to coastal South India, I see people literally dying from Al Gore virtually daily…and it has nothing to do with global warming.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Explain, please. I’m also curious which policies and candidates you support.</p>
<p>As above (post 211). World Bank/IMF policies, coupled with Gore’s emphatic push for globalization, pushed literally hundreds of thousands of people off lands they had farmed for centuries, to be replaced by “quick buck” prawn farms, destroying the soil, destroying the water table, destroying the fishing industries, leaving a gray moon-like wasteland behind in what had been ricebowl of south India 10-year-old girls sold into virtual slavery because there is nothing to eat. I personally support 240 children of newly migrant laborers, who have to range hundreds of miles looking for work, and those who can’t die slowly of malnutrition. The tale is the same in southern Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras (all the places where we have mass migration from into the U.S.), the same coastal land destruction in 24 nations. (I edited a book on this subject called “The Color of Freedom” - you can find it on Amazon.)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, mini is right.</p>
<p>But Gore is just a bit player in scheme of things.</p>
<p>Well you could blame ALL the politicians we’ve ever had, for something or other, because all the policies have had effects on people, sometimes negative. There are so many factors to consider. </p>
<p>So, mini, I am still curious as to which candidate/policies you do support. You have pointed out the sins of those who’ve gone before. All of that is for nothing if we do nothing to change it. Enlightening others on what’s wrong doesn’t do any good unless you can also enlighten us on how to fix it.</p>
<p>What do you recommend? I’m honestly curious since I’ve read many of your posts accusing Gore/Clinton for atrocities, but I don’t recall any posts in which you offered any solutions. Of course, I haven’t kept up with very many threads, so you may have but I just missed them. If you have addressed this in some previous threads, can you please direct me? thanks</p>
<p>“So, mini, I am still curious as to which candidate/policies you do support.”</p>
<p>mini for President</p>
<p>But in absence of that he will vote for Hillary (my prediction).</p>
<p>But mini has criticized Bill extensively, so why would he vote for Hillary?</p>
<p>“so why would he vote for Hillary?”</p>
<p>He is also a feminist.</p>
<p>"Unfortunately, mini is right.</p>
<p>But Gore is just a bit player in scheme of things."</p>
<p>In the late 80s/early 90s, he was far from a bit player - he was the leading cheerleader and global advisor, probably more responsible for global warming, if it exists, than any other single individual on the planet. </p>
<p>I live in Washington State, where my vote is virtually irrelevant, and I can vote for whom I choose without any illusions that it makes any difference whatsoever. I won’t vote for Hillary - I think she was either in on the Great Lie of 1998 that led to the war in Iraq, or, alternatively, she is tremendously easy to bamboozle (which I doubt). I also don’t make it a habit of voting for the spouses of mass murderers. </p>
<p>I favor an end to private health insurance, universal health coverage, heavily regulation of pharmaceutical companies like the public utilities they are, a 75% immediate cut in the defense budget, an asset tax (we can discuss the size), a peace tax alternative to whatever income tax we end up with, an immediate end to corporate personhood, regulation of corporation according to the public purposes they are supposed to be fulfilling in the granting of their state incorporations, consumption taxes based on the distance an item travels from where it is consumed…etc., etc. Actually, what I would really like to see is the division of the U.S. up into 5,000 or so cantons. None of this will happen in my lifetime, so, really, what I favor is irrelevant.</p>
<p>Candidates I can imagine voting for (though it makes no difference), include Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Huckabee, and, if it ever got that far, Paul. As it turns out, I voted for McCain in 2000 (but wouldn’t do it again). Candidates I can’t imagine ever voting for include Hillary, Giuliani, Gingrich (thank heavens, he is not running). There is also something to be said for candidates who can lie well, or at least can surround themselves with folks who can - Powell and Rumsfeld and Rice were/are pitiful at it. </p>
<p>I expect I will probably vote for David McReynolds - why waste my vote? But, honestly, I don’t spend a lot of time wrestling with the candidates.</p>
<p>Thanks. Interesting.</p>