To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to: Info@NorthPacificResearch.com

 

The Problems with Critiquing the Oregonian

We have become aware that we are repeating ourselves. We beg your pardon, we suddenly realized that is because we are critiquing the Oregronian, and they just repeat the same nonsense over and over. See below. In the future, we shall try to branch out a little.

Oregroanian May 5, 2007 page A1: An article titled –Chill out, world: we all can limit global warming – States “The united Nations Panel on Climate change, which until now has laid out doomsday global warming scenarios, had some good news Friday: Climate change can be limited and at a reasonable price.” This sounds like the old bait and switch. Now that we have gotten your attention just do as we say and nobody will get hurt.

Sorry United Nations Panel on Climate Change and My way or the highway Oregroanian we are not buying your advice. We cannot limit climate change at a reasonable price, especially if we do as they direct. The scientists on the panel are not doing science they are doing behavior modification and that is the realm of religion. Science by definition is supposed to be free of bias. The science behind the global warm theory is extremely closed-minded and ignores significant evidence that is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Anyone who thinks that “putting on a sweater, …buying a hybrid car, …hanging laundry out to dry” stress in the article, will solve this problem either is an idiot or thinks that global climate change is a vehicle to modify behavior. In truth, we do not know if the global temperature is rising, but we do know that the proposed solution will not affect the temperature of the globe.

If you like simple solutions, the problem is quite simply population, population, population. One hundred years ago there were 2 billion people on the planet, today the population is close to 7 billion. Increasing the population by a factor 3.5 will increase the energy use, industry, poverty, hunger and pollution by the same factor. The science behind this statement is overwhelming. Why is this solution being ignored? Could it be because it is not pleasant solution? Sometimes solving problems is not pleasant.

It should be obvious that planet cannot support an infinite number of humans. It is also obvious that there is an optimum number of humans the planet can support. Stopping growth is unfortunately not the answer. The population growth must be reversed. If you just want life, stop growth if you want a GOOD life growth has to be reversed.



By the Staff

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/



The Difference between Intelligence and Wisdom

Oregroanian May 4, 2007 page A5: An article titled –Global climate panel agrees: “Do something Now” – States “International delegates reached an agreement early today on the best way to combat climate change.” Certainly, these people are intelligent individuals highly educated in the science of climatology. However it is one thing to say we think global temperature will rise in the next 30 years, and that it is due to green house gases. It’s another thing, to say the solution to this problem is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. This is an over simplification of a complex problem. History shows that the concept of “doing something now” leads overwhelmingly to failure and simply exchanges one problem for another.

“It’s all done, said Peter Lukey a member of the South Africa delegation. Everything we wanted to see was there and more. The message is we have to do something now.” Isn’t Peter pleased with himself. Does the word “something” mean anything to Peter? Hey, us wise and right thinking climatologist have found a problem. How many of these righteous environmentalists have doctorates in economics, physics, engineering and 25 other disciplines that are associated with solving this problem. For example, have any of these climate scientist, ever studied the effects of removing 300,000,000,000,000,000 BTU’s from the weather system, or do they just hold to the naive belief that solar and wind power is not important to the environment. That Mother Nature has an infinite supply and most of the surplus is just wasted. There is no such thing as clean energy in the staggering amounts that are being used presently on this planet.

That what they so flippantly demand as the solution to the problem will increase poverty and starvation on this planet and that poverty and starvation produce terrorism apparently does not concern them. In their tiny little minds as long as we set arbitrary quotas on carbon emissions, the world will be a happy place.

What is most disturbing is that these are the same people we are relying on to do the science that supports their thesis that the globe is warming. Simplistic solutions indicate a simplistic analysis, which has ignored among other things, the role of metabolism in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.



By D. J. Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/



Page :  1 2 
 
To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to Info@NorthPacificResearch.com