PETA roars over U.K. army?s bearskin hats
- Thread starter fishypoo2
- Start date
Happychem,
I would agree with you if your information were correct. Fortunately for the Earth and its inhabitants, the information about global warming and such are lies. Over 18000 scientists including the head of the department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Studies at MIT explain that fears about global warming are based on myth. Many of them will go on to say that environmentalism is being driven to promote a more sinister agenda of land grabs and enslavement.
Another myth widely spoken about is overpopulation. It will never happen. Our country alone contains about a third of the population of the planet, and central U.S. is still barely populated. Those who promote the myth of overpopulation are most commonly those elitists that promote eugenics and enslavement. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc.
Also, crop rotation does promote more productive crops. You are correct in stating that crop rotation prevents soil depletion. If the soil becomes depleted the crops will die, therefore, there will be no production. A crop that uses up a certain nutrient is moved to soil that has that/ those certain nutrients it needs and the original location is used for a crop that will need nutrients left by that crop and will produce and/or enhance the nutrients that the original crop needs. It doesn’t take more land to produce the same amount of food. It is perfectly efficient to have two or more complementary crops. No farmer, in his/her right mind would raise only one crop and just move that one crop around to soil that could support it. That would be insanity.
Here are some articles 3 of the 4 of them are interviews with scientists. I hope they help in dispelling any fears based on these myths and lies promoted by elitists and idiots.
Timm,
I just wanted to clarify: not all industrialists are evil, look at Henry Ford. He was a good man. I used the term "elitists" to be more specific.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/01-31-2000/vo16no03_environment.htm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/09-08-2003/vo19no18_warming.htm
I would agree with you if your information were correct. Fortunately for the Earth and its inhabitants, the information about global warming and such are lies. Over 18000 scientists including the head of the department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Studies at MIT explain that fears about global warming are based on myth. Many of them will go on to say that environmentalism is being driven to promote a more sinister agenda of land grabs and enslavement.
Another myth widely spoken about is overpopulation. It will never happen. Our country alone contains about a third of the population of the planet, and central U.S. is still barely populated. Those who promote the myth of overpopulation are most commonly those elitists that promote eugenics and enslavement. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc.
Also, crop rotation does promote more productive crops. You are correct in stating that crop rotation prevents soil depletion. If the soil becomes depleted the crops will die, therefore, there will be no production. A crop that uses up a certain nutrient is moved to soil that has that/ those certain nutrients it needs and the original location is used for a crop that will need nutrients left by that crop and will produce and/or enhance the nutrients that the original crop needs. It doesn’t take more land to produce the same amount of food. It is perfectly efficient to have two or more complementary crops. No farmer, in his/her right mind would raise only one crop and just move that one crop around to soil that could support it. That would be insanity.
Here are some articles 3 of the 4 of them are interviews with scientists. I hope they help in dispelling any fears based on these myths and lies promoted by elitists and idiots.
Timm,
I just wanted to clarify: not all industrialists are evil, look at Henry Ford. He was a good man. I used the term "elitists" to be more specific.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/01-31-2000/vo16no03_environment.htm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/09-08-2003/vo19no18_warming.htm
I am not arguing with your ideas but as a trained historian I must say that using 4 sources that are actually all the same source isn't a good idea. Try to find some ifo from something other than The New American, which I must say seems to be fairly baised on the right side of things. Not that I am saying it isn't a good magazine but liek all magazines and papers it does have a slant to its articles. That is why we need multiple sources from both sides of the coin.
happychem said:
Bears wander into towns? or towns are built where bears would normally wander? :troll:
I find it difficult to believe that canada needs to cull 50K bears a year. Perhaps canada wants to cull 50K bears a year, and that that 5K+ that they get for each hide may sure help sweeten the deal.
And you might want to check your math, B.
According to the US Census Bureau ( http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html ):
Populations as of 18:04 GMT (EST+5) May 16, 2005
U.S. 296,130,760
World 6,441,861,124
Less than 5% does not equal 1/3rd of a total. The reason the US is "barely" populated is because there aren't really all that many people here. Now China... they've got a significant percentage of the world's population. Around 14% or so... and that's still not 1/3rd.
I could get into estimated population growth predictors for the next 50 years, but I won't. Suffice it to say, we are on the fast track to major problems.
And TKOS has a point. I used to read a bunch of data online that basically all came from one point of view. While it made me feel better about my ideas, in the long run it was very bad because my POV isn't the only one. Once I branched out, I found that a lot of what I had read and been told was the efforts of a group of one-minded people trying to make reality by repeating it over and over. Try spreading out your reading. You may not like it at first, but you'll have a much better (and rounded) view of the world.
Beeker said:
According to the US Census Bureau ( http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html ):
Populations as of 18:04 GMT (EST+5) May 16, 2005
U.S. 296,130,760
World 6,441,861,124
Less than 5% does not equal 1/3rd of a total. The reason the US is "barely" populated is because there aren't really all that many people here. Now China... they've got a significant percentage of the world's population. Around 14% or so... and that's still not 1/3rd.
I could get into estimated population growth predictors for the next 50 years, but I won't. Suffice it to say, we are on the fast track to major problems.
And TKOS has a point. I used to read a bunch of data online that basically all came from one point of view. While it made me feel better about my ideas, in the long run it was very bad because my POV isn't the only one. Once I branched out, I found that a lot of what I had read and been told was the efforts of a group of one-minded people trying to make reality by repeating it over and over. Try spreading out your reading. You may not like it at first, but you'll have a much better (and rounded) view of the world.
Stupid compy, crashing when I'm ranting!
sigh... Maybe you should do your research at a website that doesn't scream partisan bs in the banner. I'll confess that I didn't read much farther than that and to skim quickly through.
Let's start with population. The US must've been pumping out babies like mad in the recent year because you suggest that the US population has increased by about 1.7 billion people, in order to contain 1/3 the world's population. The US with about 300 million houses about 5%, or 1/20, of the world's 6.4 billion inhabitants. Perhaps you should take a trip to Mexico city, the world's most populated city, and tell them that there's no population problem. Or perhaps Calcutta would be more receptive?
Crop rotations require land to lie fallow. That means no crops. It's not just a matter of moving things around indefinitely. The whole point of land laying fallow is so that nature can take its course and break down the detritus left behind or churned into the soil. I'm not going to get into the finer points of agriculture, I grew up surrounded by it but never studied it, but clearly you have been misled as to the practice of crop rotation.
And now to the main event, if you want to rattle my cage, all you have to do is say: "there's no climate change".
As long as we're doing away with "myths and lies promoted by elitists and idiots", let's talk climate change. Being an environmental scientist myself I get to hear this line about "there's no climate change", usually spurting forth from pro-oil people. Now as long as we're talking "sinister agendas" who do we believe is the more likely to have an agenda? The scientists, who while they are interested in getting more funding are ultimately bound by data, or the guy who wants to drill for more oil? Be reasonable!
Here, read this: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
Stick to the policymakers section and you should be able to avoid the heavier science on modeling and such.
If you're really feeling lazy, skip to the charts on page 6.
Or if you're foolish enough to think that the scientists of the World Meteorological Organisation have some diabolical foreigner plan, perhaps the US based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would suit you better.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jones2004/jones2004.html
There used to be some reasoning to being skeptical about climate change. For the past several thousand years the earth's climate has been oscillating between glacial and interglacial climates. These are correlated with low and high atmospheric CO2 levels. However, we are currently at much higher levels than the oscillitory maxima can account for, by about 30%.
Okay, but let's forget science for a moment. There are 6+ billion people on the planet. They take up space, burn fossil fuels, and carry out life processes, like breathing! At what point in history were there 6+ billion people on the planet? Never! The bottom line is that you can't add that many people and expect there to be no effect.
sigh... Maybe you should do your research at a website that doesn't scream partisan bs in the banner. I'll confess that I didn't read much farther than that and to skim quickly through.
Let's start with population. The US must've been pumping out babies like mad in the recent year because you suggest that the US population has increased by about 1.7 billion people, in order to contain 1/3 the world's population. The US with about 300 million houses about 5%, or 1/20, of the world's 6.4 billion inhabitants. Perhaps you should take a trip to Mexico city, the world's most populated city, and tell them that there's no population problem. Or perhaps Calcutta would be more receptive?
Crop rotations require land to lie fallow. That means no crops. It's not just a matter of moving things around indefinitely. The whole point of land laying fallow is so that nature can take its course and break down the detritus left behind or churned into the soil. I'm not going to get into the finer points of agriculture, I grew up surrounded by it but never studied it, but clearly you have been misled as to the practice of crop rotation.
And now to the main event, if you want to rattle my cage, all you have to do is say: "there's no climate change".
As long as we're doing away with "myths and lies promoted by elitists and idiots", let's talk climate change. Being an environmental scientist myself I get to hear this line about "there's no climate change", usually spurting forth from pro-oil people. Now as long as we're talking "sinister agendas" who do we believe is the more likely to have an agenda? The scientists, who while they are interested in getting more funding are ultimately bound by data, or the guy who wants to drill for more oil? Be reasonable!
Here, read this: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
Stick to the policymakers section and you should be able to avoid the heavier science on modeling and such.
If you're really feeling lazy, skip to the charts on page 6.
Or if you're foolish enough to think that the scientists of the World Meteorological Organisation have some diabolical foreigner plan, perhaps the US based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would suit you better.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jones2004/jones2004.html
There used to be some reasoning to being skeptical about climate change. For the past several thousand years the earth's climate has been oscillating between glacial and interglacial climates. These are correlated with low and high atmospheric CO2 levels. However, we are currently at much higher levels than the oscillitory maxima can account for, by about 30%.
Okay, but let's forget science for a moment. There are 6+ billion people on the planet. They take up space, burn fossil fuels, and carry out life processes, like breathing! At what point in history were there 6+ billion people on the planet? Never! The bottom line is that you can't add that many people and expect there to be no effect.
Beeker said:
There are indisputable facts that show global warming is indeed happening. Im not sure what you have read, but the scientific community does not debate that global warming is happening, they only debate the cause, and the solution.
Your right, from a food and land standpoint, we have a very long way to go. However, IMO, there is more to overpopulation than just food and territory. Especially when we are talking about things on a massive scale, as in 6 billion+ humans.
Last edited:
Hehe. Yes, obviously it's the case that the towns are built where the bears will wander; however, the same could be said about the establishment of any city, there's always wildlife being chased off.slipknottin said:
As the WWF article said, the population is remaining constant or rising at that level of cull. The total was for both Canada and the US, so it's not just Canada culling 50K bears.
The article suggests that it's not the cull that is problematic, but the illegal hunting/poaching that is a potential problem.
happychem said:
Youve got to figure, if there is that much of an abundant supply of food for these animals, that there is a waste of resouces somewhere. Either that other animals that also eat these foods have been eliminated, or that the bears are not in sufficient numbers yet to control these prey items (wether plant or animal).
