Our Oceans are Under Attack

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by brian eiland, May 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. micah719
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 30
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 92
    Location: Somewhere in Germany

    micah719 Plotting Dreamer

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/29/global-warming-alarmism-when-science-is-fiction/

    Emphasis mine....

    Thanks for mentioning science. Unfortunately, your politics and religion show through. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me, goes the old saw. Your credibility is gone, O warmist; repent and come out of that gang of frauds. How about we look at the real destroyers of the earth and mankind, rather than participate with them in their scams, their vandalism, and their mass murders; past, present, and if they get their way, future.
     
  2. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 692
    Likes: 16, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    Sorry, coal definitely isn’t “good for humanity”
    A new report shatters the fossil fuel industry's persistent delusion

    http://www.salon.com/2015/07/29/sorry_coal_definitely_isnt_good_for_humanity/

    If you hate coal, you must hate poor people, too.

    It’s an argument only a shameless industry shill can make — and make it, they have. Earlier this summer, when Pope Francis was preparing to unveil his encyclical on the environment, a coal lobbyist was at the ready with talking points for how climate action will harm the world’s poor, whose salvation from “the tragedy of global energy poverty” lies in the further promotion of the dirtiest of fossil fuels. Last year, while ebola raged in West Africa, the chief executive of coal giant Peabody Energy gave a presentation at an industry conference in which he suggested that energy from coal could have helped contain that crisis. And Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a shameless promotor of fossil fuels, defended the October opening of a mine. “Coal is vital for the future energy needs of the world,” he said, insisting that there be no further “demonization” of the energy source.

    Nobody’s buying it. While it’s true that, worldwide, some 1.3 billion people — mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia — lack access to electricity, it’s difficult to argue that coal, which causes dangerous air pollution and, being more carbon intensive than oil or natural gas, contributes disproportionately to climate change — which itself disproportionately targets developing countries — is anyone’s idea of a good solution.

    A new report from Oxfam Australia drives that point home. Taking specific aim at Abbott’s claim that “coal is good for humanity,” it provides a comprehensive summary of all the reasons why the opposite is in fact true. For starters, it cites the “enormous toll” that burning coal has on public health, citing a recent study linking particle pollution from that to some 670,000 premature deaths in China in 2012. Moreso than air pollution, however, it delves into the catastrophic consequences of coal burning for global climate change, highlighting the impacts — from food shortages to extreme weather to economic losses — that poorer countries will likely face.
     
  3. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 692
    Likes: 16, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Larry_Bell

    Larry Bell is a weekly columnist for Forbes Magazine with no evident climate expertise who writes columns dismissing climate science[1], [2]. He is listed as author of a Jan. 2011 book titled Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax, published through the Greenleaf Book Group, a vanity press

    Bell appears to have no background in climate science. His Forbes blurb states that "Weekly columnist Larry Bell is a professor at the University of Houston and author of Climate of Corruption"; his University of Houston professorship is in "Space Architecture", where he is director of the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) - an institution funded by the Sasakawa Foundation, which was founded by Ryoichi Sasakawa, "rightist and gambling figure" who was "the last living member of a group accused after World War II of the most serious war crimes" (and "gave millions of dollars to charity").[3]; the foundation is chaired by Sasakawa's son.[4]
     
  4. FactsNotFiction
    Joined: Jul 2015
    Posts: 2
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 12
    Location: Brisbane Australia

    FactsNotFiction New Member

    This ad hominem attack has absolutely no place here. This is again, no more than an attack upon scientific reason by a commercial organisation with a vested interest. I asked for peer reviewed science. You need an alternative, credible model in order to stake your claim.

    When it comes to short term cycles, we have been going through a period of lower sun output (less sun spot activity). The solar maximum in the last 14 year cycle was way below that of the previous 2 cycles. Weaker and fewer El Nino cycles correlate with lower temperatures. Despite this air temps have increased. More particularly, ocean temps have increased and glacial melt ice shelf collapse and sea level rise have forced the IPCC to adjust upward its earlier sea level rise estimates. I have no intention of going further with counter arguments as the Forbes piece is typical of denialist think tankery.

    Finally the insurance argument: most people have many forms of insurance: i.e. motor vehicle, liability, medical, home, boat. Societies insure by providing education, publicly accessible healthcare, welfare and pensions. Military and police spending are forms of insurance. Add the cost of these forms of insurance as a fraction of GDP and you'd find the cost of slashing the risks that global warming pose to be relatively trivial. You would have us not take any risk minimising measures, despite no warranty for this planet. It cannot be replaced, yet you accuse those who seek to reduce these risks of present and future murder. I'd see the irony if that remark wasn't repugnant. One small step short of Godwin's law.
     
  5. micah719
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 30
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 92
    Location: Somewhere in Germany

    micah719 Plotting Dreamer

    Coal is how we lifted ourselves to the standard of living we have today. Here in Teutonia, we rely on clean coal power because our socialist betters unilaterally dumped nuclear and wasted our money on unicorn fart dream-power. There are clean nuclear alternatives, we just haven't implemented them because of vested moneyed interests, and the pipe-dreams of dishonest watermelons desperately seeking attention, and grants, and feelydogoodedness by imposing their religion on others. China's coal power is dirty because they don't give a rip, but they also don't listen to others, being a totalitarian dictatorship and all. Your false dichotomy, straw-man construction, and harping on the lie of bigoil funded skepticism is not working. How about we stop wasting time and money on the proven charlatans, and get to dealing with the real killers and polluters? Forcing third-world folk to cut down their forests for fuel and poison themselves in smoke filled huts, starving them while we brew ethanol in an energy-negative wastefulness, depriving them of their own ability to survive and thrive by flooding their markets with stolen aid funneled to yet more charlatans, all the while preaching holier-than-thou pronouncements from behind our plastic oil-fueled slave-built computers purchased from megacorporations with pr departments snuggled in bed with the priests of the current enviro-religion and the violence-monopolising lackeys called government. The self-righteous in their coal-fueled electro-egomobiles don't seem to look very deeply into things, or consider problems from any other angle that doesn't fit with their pre-conceived dogma. And science was supposed to constantly self-critical so as to escape being trapped in illusory completeness of a universal theory of everything. We don't know it all, so stop pretending you do.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 692
    Likes: 16, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    All hunting is animal cruelty

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11491271

    When Cecil the lion was lured out of his sanctuary in Zimbabwe, a train of events started that ended in his beheading and an American trophy hunter going underground.

    Dentist Walter J. Palmer's capped teeth smile may well be all over his promotional material, but the recent turn of events have left him with nothing to brag about, and his sparkling career may well be ruined. This incident, tragic though it is, provides an opportunity to bring up the debate about hunting. Why do we hunt? Is it a 'sport'? Is it necessary to protect the environment? Are there any alternatives?

    As Ricky Gervais has noted, if hunting was a sport the animal would have a gun too. Hunting is an activity of stealth, cunning, and patience, not particularly skilful, and definitely not heroic. Hunters lurk in shadows, creep up on their prey, use decoys and lures. Many of them are incapable of making a clean shot, and leave animals to die a slow and painful death.

    Watching these hunters - including more women than you would imagine - carefully hiding the animal's wounds and posing over the lifeless body is a sad and sorry sight. If the trophy was won in Africa, as the majority are, the chances are that a 'canned hunt' has produced the prize, using animals who are more trusting of humans and who have been lured, or even drugged, to make them easier to kill.

    A psychologist could have a field day with what underlies the motivation of hunters, especially trophy hunters: narcissism, arrested emotional development, suppressed anger, a desire for domination and greed to possess to name just a few. Lack of empathy also comes to mind, and while, ironically, some hunters speak of the sorrow they feel after they have taken down an animal, others have a heart that is too cold to mourn the heart they have caused to stop.

    It is true that Nature is ruthless, but we can choose not to be. Animals value their own lives, and they don't want to die. Hunting, any form of hunting, is both unnecessary and cruel.
     
  7. micah719
    Joined: Jul 2012
    Posts: 30
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 92
    Location: Somewhere in Germany

    micah719 Plotting Dreamer

    "Hunting, any form of hunting, is both unnecessary and cruel."

    Good, that means Cecil had it coming....an execution for a serial hunter.

    Also, please inform the bushmen of the Kalahari that their victual procurement methods are unjust, and that they should buy their meat like everyone else. Care to weigh in on the halal scam too?
     
  8. FactsNotFiction
    Joined: Jul 2015
    Posts: 2
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 12
    Location: Brisbane Australia

    FactsNotFiction New Member

    Implicit in myark's paragraph is the claim that non humans are part of Nature and not subject to the conclusion. Humans can choose; non human's pursue needs and instinct. A classic case of cherry picking. Mind you the practice is widespread, so is it really that bad?

    It seems to me that micah's claim asserts that we need not rise above animal morality, after all we are animals and we evolved from 'lesser' forms.

    This claim cuts close to the heart of the matter. You could consider the Kalahari to be part of nature, which indeed they were prior to the advent of western choices. Still, at least they are serving needs rather than ego driven desires. The hunting is for victuals rather than trophies as you rightly point out.

    Despite the proceeding, I do take issue with the "any form of hunting" claim. When I was younger, I used to 'sport' fish. The argument went along the lines that you were giving the fish a 'sporting' chance. Load of bollocks if you ask me. The fish isn't a willing competitor. Sport fishing is driven by ego: either competing against oneself or against others for the largest fish on the lightest line. Better to fish for victuals with heavier line. Arguably, fishing in this way results in less stress than transporting live animals to the abattoir.

    Note that none of this discussion touches on sustainability. All I'll observe at this point as this is a huge topic, is that the Kalahari, bound to their one environment, are / were compelled to live sustainably. Our management of finite fisheries and arable land is all too often unsustainable. Seems to me that the Kalahari gain in moral standing on this ground. At least line fishing has far greater diminishing returns and greater moral standing due to less suffering and by-catch than long lining and gill netting.
     
  9. FactsNotFiction
    Joined: Jul 2015
    Posts: 2
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 12
    Location: Brisbane Australia

    FactsNotFiction New Member

    Note that the practice I was referring to was cherry picking, not hunting. Clarity, clarity.
     
  10. sdowney717
    Joined: Nov 2010
    Posts: 1,169
    Likes: 84, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 274
    Location: Newport News VA

    sdowney717 Senior Member

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855

    HeHe, LOL, sad those believers as so misbelieving in a myth thay can not admit to any other philosophy, except that the planet must be warming because it is so.
     
  11. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 692
    Likes: 16, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    I mention about trophy hunting as a fraction example about the earths disease "humans" but really the inhuman slaughter houses that are hidden from brain washed children to eat meat and the so called good doers that are no better than the trophy hunters them self's, at east the trophy hunters expose them self's.
    The argument about animals kill, so we should be able to also kill is the thoughts of a brain dead zombie, animals kill for survival, humans kill for sport and sheer greed.
    Humans do not need to kill animals "environment" and are much more healthier and live a lot longer for a list of common sense reasons also in harmony with earth but we chose to take the path to self destruction which shows the meat eaters have no conscience for other earthlings including the future generation for their own children.
     
  12. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 692
    Likes: 16, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    World's glacier melt speeding up

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/70793056/worlds-glacier-melt-speeding-up

    Anderson said the world's glaciers had not always retreated at the same time. Since the last ice age, the climate in the northern and southern hemispheres was not always in sync, so glaciers had advanced and retreated at different times.

    But glacier retreat in the 20th and 21st centuries had been dramatic and consistent across the globe and was a clear indicator of climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions, he said.
     
  13. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 692
    Likes: 16, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    ‘Obama’s clean power plan hailed as US’s strongest ever climate action’..

    http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rongest-ever-climate-action-by-a-us-president

    Hundreds of businesses including eBay and Nestle back federal rules to cut emissions and encourage a switch away from coal to renewable energy.

    Hundreds of businesses including eBay, Nestle and General Mills have issued their support for Barack Obama’s clean power plan – billed as the strongest action ever on climate change by a US president.

    The rules announced on Monday are designed to cut emissions from power plants and have been strengthened in terms of the long-term ambition as originally proposed by the president last year – but slightly weakened in the short-term in a concession to states reliant on highly-polluting coal.

    White House adviser Brian Deese said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules represented the ‘biggest step that any single president has made to curb the carbon pollution that is fuelling climate change’. The US is the world’s second biggest carbon emitter after China.
     
  14. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    How to detect climate change nonsense | Chicago Tribune
     

  15. myark
    Joined: Oct 2012
    Posts: 692
    Likes: 16, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 57
    Location: Thailand

    myark Senior Member

    My town calls my lawn a 'nuisance' - but I still refuse to mow it

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/h...lawn-a-nuisance--but-i-still-refuse-to-mow-it

    There are 40.5 million acres of lawn in the United States, more than double the size of the country's largest national forest. We disconnect ourselves from wildlife habitat loss by viewing it as a problem caused by industry and agriculture. But lawns are our biggest "crop", beating out corn, wheat and fruit combined. Habitat loss isn't a problem happening out there somewhere; it's happening in our own back yards.

    This has serious consequences. About 95 per cent of the natural landscape in the lower 48 states has been developed into cities, suburbs and farmland. Meanwhile, the global population of vertebrate animals, from birds to fish, has been cut in half during the past four decades.

    Honey bees, which we depend on to pollinate our fruits and other crops, have been dying off at an unsustainable rate. Because one in three bites of food you take requires a pollinating insect to produce it, their rapid decline is a threat to humanity. Monarch butterflies have been even more affected, with their numbers dropping 90 per cent since the 1990s. Butterflies are an important part of the food chain, so ecologists have long used them to measure the health of ecosystems.

    Nature preserves and parks are not enough to fix the problem; much of wildlife is migratory and needs continuous habitat to thrive. Natural yards can act as bridges between the larger natural spaces.

    Habitat loss isn't the only consequence; maintaining a mowed and fertilised lawn also pollutes the air, water and soil. The emissions from lawnmowers and other garden equipment are responsible for more than 5 per cent of urban air pollution. An hour of gas-powered lawn mowing produces as much pollution as four hours of driving a car.

    Americans use 800 million gallons of gas every year for lawn equipment, and 17 million gallons are spilled while refuelling mowers — more than was leaked by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. Homeowners use up to 10 times more chemicals per acre on their lawns than farmers use on crops, chemicals that can end up in drinking water and waterways.

    I decided to tackle the issue by letting my yard grow wild, and I'm not alone. Homeowners across the country have latched on to the natural lawn and "no mow" movement.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. rwatson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,822
  2. ticomique
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    649
  3. Mr. Andersen
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,722
  4. Rurudyne
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,407
  5. sdowney717
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    3,551
  6. sdowney717
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,857
  7. oceancruiser
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,676
  8. El_Guero
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    2,878
  9. BPL
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    4,777
  10. Frosty
    Replies:
    99
    Views:
    11,294
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.