More Global Warming Nonsense

coyote · #51 (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Yes, there are urban ecosystems. Quite a lot of vegetation and animals live in the city.

The point I’m trying to make is that cities sustain human life. If we did these urban ecosystem hundreds of millions of people would not be alive. So when CrankyYankee says, “Human life is based on the ecosystem, NOT the economy.” That is bullshit. Without the cities man has built and without the economy man has created human life would not exist as we know it.

percysunshine · #52 (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Yes, there are urban ecosystems. Quite a lot of vegetation and animals live in the city.

The dominant species being liberalus looniti and welfarus recipientum.

Chef · #53 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 02:26 PM

George Carlin - The Planet is Fine | TV, Music & Movies | Funny Videos, Pictures and Jokes at JibJab

wow · #54 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1wiseguy

Clearly that is from his family album. Ass Crack has to keep his prey tethered up so they don't run away. Besides, he likes the little boys even more when they squirm!

ROLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mulp · #55 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wow

There is no "credible" evidence of man-made global warming.
It's impossible to refute something that does not exist.

Right, God is bringing his wrath down on the sinners of the world for them being gay, and that is why Texas, Kansas, Indiana, Georgia, and those other Red States are being punished.

mulp · #56 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Smart's comment and coyotes resourse both have some truth to them. First smart is correct that Paul Reiter is a paid Exxon Mobile spin guru who mentions these diseases are not new as if someone suggested they were.

However the article does not refute global warming or even make a case for it or against it. The title tries to lead one to believe it does--in reality consider the portion in bold and consider this... Warmer global temperatures will allow an expansion of the geographic range within which both the mosquito and parasite could survive with sufficient abundance for sustained transmission. Expansion of these regions in addition to the factors listed in the article will contribute to increased incidence of malaria.

That said-- the physician quoted in the article is correct to directly impact reducing the incidence of malaria requires immediate attention such as prevention and, preventative drugs and reducing the risk of exposure. I worked in a region along the border of Thailand and Burma and most did take the prophy Rx. I chose not to, yet used topical DEET which has some side effects. I did not want to expose myself to the systemic side effects of the prophy Rx. It is not just a disease of poverty, but of being in the geographical regions where you are exposed.

The physician recommendations for short term immediate treatment and prevention will have immediate reductions , however Reiter neglects to address the fact that global temperatures are rising and that it will cause a geographic expansion exposing more people to the disease.

As serious as malaria is--it is secondary to issues of available fresh drinking water if sea levels continue to rise.

You do have to admit that the author has found a new use for malaria, et al, in hammering environmentalists. The usual rant involves the ban which only conservatives are aware of, not a single government or environmental group knows of the proported ban on DDT. From this mythical ban, we then get the myth that DDT ends and ended malaria single handedly, ignoring for example, the fact that India saw a massive increase in malaria even as DDT was being applied in ever increasing levels.

Of course, we never see these conservatives actually work on the problems of malaria and the other diseases. Instead they simply say that the liberals are wrong as to the reason for malaria still being a problem, as an excuse to send in global corporations to rape, pillage, and plunder those nations suffering from malaria. Of course, the places with the worse problems have long been raped, pillaged, and plundered by global corporations, starting in recent history with the East India Company.

If the answer were development, then corporations would be curing malaria for profit.....

mulp · #57 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

Which is contrary to the evidence we have seen over the last 100 years that shows that as the planet has warmed the range of mosquitoes have declined.

Care to provide proof of that? Evidence, even?

The absence of malaria says nothing about the specific mosquito that is the vector.

It is the absence of malaria infected hosts that prevents malaria's spread.

Press Releases - Increase In Mosquito Populations Heightens Concern Over West Nile Virus

Mosquito Population Increase

Increase in Mosquito Population Prompts Mississippi Public Health Officials to Issue <i>Fight the Bite</i> Reminder - Mississippi State Department of Health

Increase in Mosquito Populations Heightens Concern Over West Nile Virus.

mulp · #58 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

A point that I refuted I might add. As far as water is concerned, the problem stems not from an absence of supplies but from the absence of a proper market that would ensure a balance between supply and demand.

Maintaining water resources in open-access commons leads to depletion and degradation. In a commons argument, no one owns water and therefore no one is responsible for it or has an interest in protecting and preserving it.

Freely operating markets are the most effective means for distributing goods, whether they be bread, apartments, shows or water. Water markets discourage users from wasting valuable water, they channel supply to those who value it most, and they help reduce poverty by providing income and employment to the poor.

So, why don't farmers in drought areas go to corporations like Coke and Pepsi and buy the water they need from them?

In fact, why don't you buy the water you flush the toilet and shower with from them and their competitors - in fifteen years they grew their water market by a thousand fold.

The thing is, Atlanta is the home of Coke, if I recall, and yet Atlanta is in a drought. It seems they aren't getting enough rain. Did Georgia stop paying Coke for their rain?

coyote · #59 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

Care to provide proof of that? Evidence, even?

The absence of malaria says nothing about the specific mosquito that is the vector.

It is the absence of malaria infected hosts that prevents malaria's spread.

Press Releases - Increase In Mosquito Populations Heightens Concern Over West Nile Virus

Mosquito Population Increase

Increase in Mosquito Population Prompts Mississippi Public Health Officials to Issue <i>Fight the Bite</i> Reminder - Mississippi State Department of Health

Increase in Mosquito Populations Heightens Concern Over West Nile Virus.

Sure, here you go:

mulp · #60 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

There’s a lot to admire about the Robber Barrons. Take John D. Rockefeller, did the average American benefit from his company Standard Oil? I would say yes. His innovations brought down the price of oil so that the average American, not just the rich, could afford to illuminate their homes. What’s wrong with that?

That's like saying the vikings were innovating in finding gold and producing food when they raped, pillaged, and plundered.

One can argue that the Vikings and other barbarian raiders were useful because they unlocked the stored capital of the feudal merchantile centers that considered gaining and holding capital in treasuries and granaries was what made a kingdom great. And Adam Smith was making the point that it wasn't what was in the treasuries that made nation great.

But as you view robber barons so highly, and you consider liberals to be robber barrons, you should be supporting Obama for president and hoping for a liberal landslide in November.