Great Barrier Reef: not really dying?

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by DaveJ
And I would submit that we will leave Iraq in a similar manner, though we may have a small imprint there similar to what we did in Germany and Japan etc after WWII. We didn't take those countries over either.... and we could have easily done so. Iraq is strategic politically, not personnel wise in the region. Once they can handle their own security we will remove all but a token force.

What I find ironic.. is that given the numbers it would appear that anyone who thought we went to war with Iraq for oil, or anywhere in the region for that matter, would be making the case that we were going to war for OTHER countries oil. We tend to be good allies... but not THAT good.

I don't think you can compare WWII to the Iraq war. They're completely different beasts. I hope we do leave Iraq in the same shape as Europe and Japan, but like I said, they are different in many ways.

War is expensive, and other countries can be dealt with in different ways and don't require military action to secure oil and other resources (the IMF and World Bank being a prime example)

Originally posted by MCary
I think your wrong......just maybe...

ANWR is not a fragile environment. I know someone said that, but saying it doesn't make it true. It is basically a wasteland. Having been there I can tell you it's HUGE. The footprint of an oil platform would be like a grain of sugar on your kitchen table or make that a boardroom table. Fine, I concede that tire tracks may be visible for 100 years except for one thing, no one will see them. No one goes there. Not enough oil? If there wasn't enough oil, oil companies wouldn't be interested. If they're not interested then the point is moot. Oh and BTW, the pictures you see of the beautiful mountains and mirror lakes are over 1000 miles from the drill site. Trust me, take one flight over ANWR and your views will change. The vastness will overwhelm you.

I agree, oil companies want to make money. Those sick ba...rds. How dare a corporation try to make a profit.

Nuclear waste is not a problem. Check out Yucca Mountain plans. The problem is environmentalist's protesting its transportation through their states. Despite the fact it can be done safely.

Do more homework on DDT, you'll see I was right.

"The chemical compound that has saved more human lives than
any other in history, DDT, was banned by order of one man, the
head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public
pressure was generated by one popular book and sustained by
faulty or fraudulent research. Widely believed claims of
carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds, anti-androgenic properties, and
prolonged environmental persistence are false or grossly
exaggerated. The worldwide effect of the U.S. ban has been
millions of preventable deaths."

Abstract: DDT, A Case Study in Scientific Fraud
Author: J Gordon Edwards, Ph.D.

One of many articles you can find with a quick google.

Mike

Saying it isn't fragile doesn't make it true either. And it is NOT a wasteland. There is no such thing as a wasteland. Every part of the planet performs the exact function that it should through millions of years of evolution. Here is the abstract of an outstanding paper by Costanza et al dealing with the value of the world's environmental services. I can't find a link to the entire article, but I have read it multiple times and it is very good. If you can read the whole article I highly recommend it. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0cd3b78c1d3dfe

And ANWR having enough oil to be profitable to A PRIVATE COMPANY is not the same as being in the best interest of the US or the rest of the world.

Nuclear waste is a problem, and Yucca mountain is not the final solution nor is it fool-proof. Can anyone see 200,000 years into the future?

I have done my homework on DDT. There is a reason it isn't used in the US or any other non-tropical country. People are smart, find a safer alternative.

[Obi-dad]

I think arguing for DDT alone is worth this thread not being in the reef discussions forum. Bringing a lot of political things into this thread - maybe this shouldn't even be on any RC forums, let alone the lounge where non-reef discussions should take place. There are plenty of other forums for this type of discussion.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Obi-dad
I think arguing for DDT alone is worth this thread not being in the reef discussions forum. Bringing a lot of political things into this thread - maybe this shouldn't even be on any RC forums, let alone the lounge where non-reef discussions should take place. There are plenty of other forums for this type of discussion.

DDT has marine implications, and the politics discussed aren't focused on democrat/republican bashing. It's difficult to discuss eco policy without at least bringing up political issues because politics make the laws.

I'll try to tone it down though.

[MCary]

Thank-you discussion police. Sorry if you were forced to read something you didn't want to.

Hippie, great talking with you. Very intellectually stimulating. The whole discussion makes me want to read more and watch more TV with like topics. I'm going to drop out now because of the complexity and depth of these issues and we have only scratched the surface. Don't want to upset anyone else's sensibilites for the "topic" rules.

Oh and thanks to the rest of you guys. Good talk.

Mike

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
I don't think you can compare WWII to the Iraq war. They're completely different beasts. I hope we do leave Iraq in the same shape as Europe and Japan, but like I said, they are different in many ways.

War is expensive, and other countries can be dealt with in different ways and don't require military action to secure oil and other resources (the IMF and World Bank being a prime example)

Total comparison no (I agree with you), but for purposes of aftermath, I think they are very similar in that we replaced the governments, are building new infastructure etc.. on the path to freedom of self rule. There are still differences in the particulars, but the overall 'mission' if you will, are similar.

I'll just say that we disagree with the world organations like the World Bank and IMF and their uses and how successful they can be, along with the UN etc. THAT would get totally into politics

As you say wars are expensive, my breaking down the ANWR totals was simply to demonstrate the war for oil claim vs utilization of what we have and its cost comparisons. IF that had been our goal or purpose, it would have been much more profitable to drill up there instead.

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
DDT has marine implications, and the politics discussed aren't focused on democrat/republican bashing. It's difficult to discuss eco policy without at least bringing up political issues because politics make the laws.

I'll try to tone it down though.

Agreed there... This has threatened to become such a discussion a few times but somehow we have managed to avoid it thus far and I haven't found anything YOU have said in need to toning down. Afterall, you haven't jumped on me as the anit-christ yet like was hinted earlier

[HippieSmell]

Take it easy MCary, keep reading, I will. BTW, you're lucky to live in Montana. Beautiful place.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by DaveJ
Total comparison no (I agree with you), but for purposes of aftermath, I think they are very similar in that we replaced the governments, are building new infastructure etc.. on the path to freedom of self rule. There are still differences in the particulars, but the overall 'mission' if you will, are similar.

I'll just say that we disagree with the world organations like the World Bank and IMF and their uses and how successful they can be, along with the UN etc. THAT would get totally into politics

As you say wars are expensive, my breaking down the ANWR totals was simply to demonstrate the war for oil claim vs utilization of what we have and its cost comparisons. IF that had been our goal or purpose, it would have been much more profitable to drill up there instead.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the "mission" in Iraq.

Just to be clear, I don't like the IMF or World Bank either. They were great for reconstructing Europe but after that they were hijacked by private businesses that persuaded poor countries to become hopelessly indebted with enormous loans. This made large constuction firms, corrupt third-world country leaders, and other people in power very wealthy while shackling the people of that country into poverty. Then, in order to remove the debt (which by design could never be repaid), the country must open up their natural resources to international business. Very, very lucrative. Just look at past and present leaders of this county and see who is involved with large construction firms. I'm not trying to be conspiratorial, it's just the way it is.

Originally posted by DaveJ
Agreed there... This has threatened to become such a discussion a few times but somehow we have managed to avoid it thus far and I haven't found anything YOU have said in need to toning down. Afterall, you haven't jumped on me as the anit-christ yet like was hinted earlier

Yeah, it's been a fine line. You aren't the anti-christ? Dangit.

Do you know where he is?

[Nabber86]

I would just like to point out a couple of things:

Humans are are part of nature. Anything that humans do is "natural". We are not some alien life form to this planet.

The concept of "saving the planet" is self centered, eogtistic, and puts way too much importance on humans. What are we saving the planet for? Answer = more humans (our children). Any way you cut it, that is just plain selfishness.

Also dont forget, crude oil the most "natural" substance on the planet. It is literally the essence of all life that has lived before us.

[nathan brown]

Take a look at the April 3, 2006 TIME magazine. Scary!!! And you should have seen the atricle on the CNN website about the Caribbean coral die off from rising ocean temps. They lost 800 yr old coral heads in a matter of weeks!!

[RichConley]

Originally posted by Nabber86
I would just like to point out a couple of things:

Humans are are part of nature. Anything that humans do is "natural". We are not some alien life form to this planet.

The concept of "saving the planet" is self centered, eogtistic, and puts way too much importance on humans. What are we saving the planet for? Answer = more humans (our children). Any way you cut it, that is just plain selfishness.

Also dont forget, crude oil the most "natural" substance on the planet. It is literally the essence of all life that has lived before us.

Thats just a huge cop-out.

We stopped being a natural population about 500 years ago. We dont even feel evolutionary pressures on us anymore.

[nathan brown]

Take a look at the April 3, 2006 TIME magazine. Scary!!! And you should have seen the atricle on the CNN website about the Caribbean coral die off from rising ocean temps. They lost 800 yr old coral heads in a matter of weeks!!

[reeformadness]

Its called climatology....there are ways of calculating historical temperatures...if you don't believe it....do your research...by the way there is some temperature data that goes back well more than 50 years. Its accelerating...face it. We'll live...I just feel sorry for people living close to sea level. The world's gonna end...that's good rationale for sitting with our hands in our pockets while fat cats are DRIVING species into extinction. Its already clear you don't care by your lack of knowledge on the subject. The bleaching of our coral reefs is not highly understood...but I'm on the side that wants to help fix it.

[RobbyG]

LOL this whole world wide Global Warming Debate is a Joke. It's just human nature to argue about things that are obvious but unpleasant, it gives us time to keep on doing what we want to do for a bit longer, so that some commitee can come back and tell us what we already know.

If your Over 35 years old, you don't need any scientist to point out to you that things are changing and they are changing fast, we actually comfort ourselves by saying it's our children that will suffer but the truth is we will suffer with them and for many people in many parts of the world it has already started.

You can see the effects of global warming every Hurricane season and every summer across America and Europe as each year the heat the forest fire and the droughts go to some new record levels. Its only a matter of a few years, before we get the "perfect disaster" something like the Midwest with 130 Deg Temp and a massive power outgage hitting from Air Conditioner Overload. This would be like what happened in France but only worst. It's not till something like this happens or say a 250 MPH Hurricane that goverments will stop debating and start doing something about it.

[wetWolger]

Originally posted by Nabber86
I would just like to point out a couple of things:

Humans are are part of nature. Anything that humans do is "natural". We are not some alien life form to this planet.

The concept of "saving the planet" is self centered, eogtistic, and puts way too much importance on humans. What are we saving the planet for? Answer = more humans (our children). Any way you cut it, that is just plain selfishness.

Also dont forget, crude oil the most "natural" substance on the planet. It is literally the essence of all life that has lived before us.

There have been a lot of great comments. I would like to take some time to reply to a few of them.

First we must consider ourselfs sepearte from nature just for the sake of argument. Also if you look at other species they don't have a choice on there ecological impact they make on the world. They simply are driven with the will to survive. Where we are the first species to accually be able to make that assertion and do percises changes to our enviroment. So thus I would say that we are indeed sperate from nature for this argument.

Also whebn you say we are saving the planet simply just for more humans. I would have to disagree with you on this one. Me and other ecologicaly consious individiuals would argue that our biggest problem is there are already too MANY humans. Infact I would argue that this is the key problem with our current enviormental situation. I beleave that there is beauty in something because it simply exist. It does not have to do anything amazing, or help me in any way. But because it is there, it is beautiful. All I and others are trying to do is allow things to continue to exist and be beautiful.

Originally posted by RobbyG
LOL this whole world wide Global Warming Debate is a Joke. It's just human nature to argue about things that are obvious but unpleasant, it gives us time to keep on doing what we want to do for a bit longer, so that some commitee can come back and tell us what we already know.

If your Over 35 years old, you don't need any scientist to point out to you that things are changing and they are changing fast, we actually comfort ourselves by saying it's our children that will suffer but the truth is we will suffer with them and for many people in many parts of the world it has already started.

You can see the effects of global warming every Hurricane season and every summer across America and Europe as each year the heat the forest fire and the droughts go to some new record levels. Its only a matter of a few years, before we get the "perfect disaster" something like the Midwest with 130 Deg Temp and a massive power outgage hitting from Air Conditioner Overload. This would be like what happened in France but only worst. It's not till something like this happens or say a 250 MPH Hurricane that goverments will stop debating and start doing something about it.

This post brings up a great point. Infact IMO this is one of the biggest issues with our (united states) current political system. In electing someone every 4 years we only look at short term problems (4 year problems to be exact) People do not vote on things that are not effecting them durring the time of election. I would like to see anyone run and get elected for a long term energy policy. The biggest problem is that because of this the goverment does not accually start working on problems untill they are HUGE PROBLEMS. There is little ability to react to things before they happen. This prevention is usally prevented due to a lack of funds and public intrest. If you only had $10 would you spend it to prevent a problem that may occur in 2 decades? Or a current more minor problem that will help you get elected next voting season? The other big problem with this is it is costing ourselfs TONS of money. It is offten a lot cheaper to prevent a problem than fix a huge mess years down the line.

p.s. the bold items are not because I am shouting or anything....I am sure that many people do not read my long wind speaches. And this may intise them to read that paragraph. IMO this is a HUGE problem with america's goverment

[RichConley]

Originally posted by RobbyG

You can see the effects of global warming every Hurricane season and every summer across America and Europe as each year the heat the forest fire and the droughts go to some new record levels. I

IIRC, the last time we had temperature changes this quick, was right before the ice age.


That scares the crap out of me.

[Nabber86]

Originally posted by jent46bow
Also when you say we are saving the planet simply just for more humans. I would have to disagree with you on this one. Me and other ecologicaly consious individiuals would argue that our biggest problem is there are already too MANY humans. Infact I would argue that this is the key problem with our current enviormental situation.......

Right and that leads to the inevitable conclusion that all environmentalists secretly espouse - that we must destroy all humans on the planet, or at least the evil ones that do not hug trees and drive SUVs. That way only the righteous survive. Which leads right back to egotism and a smug feeling of self importance. Admit it, you just want to save the planet for yourself and the rest of the tree-huggers.

(please take the above comments with a grain of sarcasm – I don’t want anyone blowing up my SUV)

[Nabber86]

Its called climatology

No, it is now called climatescientology. Along with degrees in earthscientology oceanscientology that now take the place of real degrees in the sciences.

[Nabber86]

Originally posted by RichConley
Thats just a huge cop-out.

We stopped being a natural population about 500 years ago. We dont even feel evolutionary pressures on us anymore.

Soooo if we are not part of nature what are we?

Let me guess....we are gods that are elevated above nature and we are here to save the planet. Is that what you are saying? Natural laws dont apply to humans? That's a really scary concept.

[wetWolger]

Originally posted by Nabber86
Right and that leads to the inevitable conclusion that all environmentalists secretly espouse - that we must destroy all humans on the planet, or at least the evil ones that do not hug trees and drive SUVs. That way only the righteous survive. Which leads right back to egotism and a smug feeling of self importance. Admit it, you just want to save the planet for yourself and the rest of the tree-huggers.

(please take the above comments with a grain of sarcasm – I don’t want anyone blowing up my SUV)

I am sorry but this statment is just insane. No where did I segrigate any group of people. I just stated there are too many people in general. And I am not talking about a genocide here. But it should be a consideration when you and your loved one are thinking of having a kid. Maybe addoption is a better alternative? And to say I want the whole world to myself is just retarted because the popluation changes I would like to see wont accually have an effect for many generations.

[reeformadness]

Let's be totally rediculous. I understand what you are trying to say but its obvious that you don't understand what science is about. Do you hold your opinion to be superior to scientific method (people that have A degree in real sciences)? Bias is exactly what scientists avoid.

[Nabber86]

Originally posted by reeformadness
Let's be totally rediculous. I understand what you are trying to say but its obvious that you don't understand what science is about. Do you hold your opinion to be superior to scientific method (people that have A degree in real sciences)? Bias is exactly what scientists avoid.

Yes I understand what science is about. What I was commenting on was the ever-increasing number of psuedo-scientists who's resumes come across my desk all too often. I am seeing less and less hard science in the course work and more general courses that slant more towards political science than anything else.

[reeformadness]

OK. I just don't see the science in calling crude oil the MOST natural substance. Sure its the carbon sink for the carbon cycle that is a very natural process that we are upsetting, but wouldn't water probably be the most important (I said it, uneqivocally important) substance for life. Just because oil is natural doesn't make burning it natural. I understand that there is less respect for science and more acceptance for "pseudo"-science that supports biased agendas...however, isn't chalking up the disruption of the entire biosphere by a single species worthy of concern?

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Nabber86
I would just like to point out a couple of things:

Humans are are part of nature. Anything that humans do is "natural". We are not some alien life form to this planet.

The concept of "saving the planet" is self centered, eogtistic, and puts way too much importance on humans. What are we saving the planet for? Answer = more humans (our children). Any way you cut it, that is just plain selfishness.

Also dont forget, crude oil the most "natural" substance on the planet. It is literally the essence of all life that has lived before us.

Humans are a part of nature, but nature doesn't make me do most of the things I do. Nature didn't make me turn on the computer or take my dog for a walk. Nature made me take a dump this morning and eat a banana. If you can't admit that humans are different from everything else on the planet, then you are lying.

"Saving the planet" is egotistic and self-centered? Damn those ecologists and their hundreds and hundreds of dollars! They're just in it for themselves, lol. Self-centered is not caring if the planet self-destructs before your eyes.

I suppose oil is natural, but so is nuclear fission and botulism. It doesn't mean it's good for you in every situation.

But, whatever. I think you're just in here trolling.

[ruppel]

Well this has been one hell of a great read....

I'd like to express my profound ignorance about most of the topics discussed and will be contributing very little to the debate (except the DDT thing--although that sounds like it's off the board now), but after I get some popcorn I'll be watching from the cheap seats...