Re: What is the difference between "preachers" like Pat Robertson and "scientists" like Paul Ehrlich, et.al.?

At 11:11 AM 12/6/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>Janice Matchett wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Seriously, now ---- what is the difference between "preachers" like
>>Pat Robertson and "scientists" like Paul Ehrlich, et.al.? * :) * ~
>>Janice

>Seriously? Are we now engaged in a quote mining competition? What's
>the purpose of this "somewhat" off-topic comment by Janice?

### Just conducting a "scientific experiment" to see who wants to be
first to change the subject.

>The impact of human activity on issues such as the Ozone hole and
>Global Warming are quite well documented, is that what Janice sees
>as the difference?

### My next "scientific experiment" is to wait and see exactly who
doesn't notice that you changed the subject and follows your lead in
responding. LOL

In the meantime, for those scientists who don't want to wind up
having their reputations being tied in with the reputations of guys
like Ehrlich, here is BSR against the "concerns" of earth's really,
really, reeeeeally guuuuud people who KNOW what's best for the rest
of us stuuuupid lame-brains:

"...For anywhere other than Antarctica and a few sparsely inhabited
islands, the first condition for a healthy environment is a strong
economy. In the past third of a century, the American economy has
swollen by 150 per cent, automobile traffic has increased by 143 per
cent, and energy consumption has grown 45 per cent.

During this same period, air pollutants have declined by 29 per cent,
toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per
cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent.

Despite signing on to Kyoto, European greenhouse gas emissions have
increased since 2001, whereas America's emissions have fallen by
nearly one per cent, despite the Toxic Texan's best efforts to
destroy the planet.

Had America and Australia ratified Kyoto, and had the Europeans
complied with it instead of just pretending to, by 2050 the treaty
would have reduced global warming by 0.07C - a figure that would be
statistically undectectable within annual climate variation.

In return for this meaningless gesture, American GDP in 2010 would be
lower by $97 billion to $397 billion - and those are the US Energy
Information Administration's somewhat optimistic models.

I've mentioned before the environmentalists' ceaseless fretting for
the prospect of every species but their own. By the end of this
century, the demographically doomed French, Italians and Spaniards
will be so shrivelled in number they may have too few
environmentalists to man their local Greenpeace office. Is that part
of the plan? To create a habitable environment with no humans left to
inhabit it? If so, destroying the global economy for 0.07C is a swell idea.

But even the poseurs of the European chancelleries are having second
thoughts. Which is why, in their efforts to flog some life back into
the dead Kyoto horse, the eco-cultists have to come up with ever
scarier horrors, such as that "New Ice Age". Meanwhile, the Bush
Administration's Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and
Climate brings together the key economic colossi of this new century
- America, China and India - plus Australia, Japan and South Korea,
in a relationship that acknowledges, unlike Kyoto, the speed of
Chinese and Indian economic growth, provides for the sharing of
cleaner energy technology and recognises that the best friend of the
planet's natural resources is the natural resourcefulness of a
dynamic economy.

It's a practical and results-oriented approach, which is why the
eco-cultists will never be marching through globally warmed,
snow-choked streets on its behalf. It lacks the requisite component
of civilisational self-loathing.

Wake up and smell the CO2, guys. Sayonara, Kyoto. Hello, coalition of
the emitting. ~ M. Steyn MORE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534586/posts

~ Janice
-----Origional message-----
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:57:01 -0500
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Subject: What is the difference between "preachers" like Pat
Robertson and "scientists" like Paul Ehrlich, et.al.?

Hi all,

Seriously, now ---- what is the difference between "preachers" like
Pat Robertson and "scientists" like Paul Ehrlich, et.al.? :) ~ Janice

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord
with the increase in global air pollution associated with
industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding
population." -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a
rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will
undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve
to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon
now." Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The
Population Bomb (1968)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year
2000" -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.
Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the
stench of dead fish." -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in
which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing
depletion" -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the
rest of the century"-- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun
to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic
decline in food production - with serious political implications for
just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could
begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has
now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are
hard-pressed to keep up with it." -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If
it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world
famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about
before the year 2000." -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees
colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees
colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to
put us in an ice age." -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and
global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534586/posts>Mark Steyn:
What planet are the eco-cultists on?
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534586//^http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/12/06/do0602.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/12/06/ixopinion.html>The
Telegraph (UK) ^ | 12/6/05 | Mark Steyn
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534586/posts
Received on Tue Dec 6 12:23:33 2005