From: "Mark" 

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming.html

Right after the 2006 Leyte mudslide killed nearly a thousand people it was
obvious from the available aerial pictures that many of slopes which had
collapsed had been stripped of their natural forest cover and converted to
subsistence agriculture. None of this had to do with ethanol, of course.
But it did have to do with the lack of job opportunities in the
Philippines. The employer of last resort in a Third World country is always
the land. When an unemployed man runs out of options, he borrows a shovel
and a box of matches and goes out to engage in swidden farming, also known
as kaingin. When the Kyoto protocols were first announced, with the
intention of controlling the emissions of greenhouse gases, its
implications may not have been fully understood by the Environmentalists
who designed it. The Kyoto protocol, whatever its positive effects, would
also have a negative effect in employment to the extent it dampened
economic growth. Less growth. Fewer jobs. More kaingin. More matches and
shovels in what is left of the forest. Leyte.

While not an argument against Kyoto per se, it is a reminder that any
policy is likely to have both positive and negative effects. The trick, as
any policy analyst knows, is to be certain any new policy produces net
benefits. That is, that the good points clearly outweigh the bad. This is
especially true in environmental policy issues in which enormously complex
systems -- the weather, the biosphere and humankind -- all interact in ways
that nobody; and certainly not the Environmentalists, understand. In the
case of ethanol, the fuel industry will inevitably compete with the food
industry to use corn. The resulting price increases may not be permanent
where farmers can increase their own corn production. They will plant more
corn -- but there will be more cultivation. And in places where the market
doesn't work or government distortions make it difficult for farmers to
ramp up their production the prices may simply rise. That's not what anyone
wanted. But that's the Law of Unintended Consequences.

====

Not in the mood for much commentary, but I'll note simply that no one
understands much of anything, and until they proffer proof positive that
their doomsday BS has merit (which they'll *never* be able to do as it is
the nature of nature that we're facing), I'll fight their penchant for
spending billions, nay, trillions, on their own little pet projects to
benefit their friends in high places and destroy us little people's place
in the world here in the US while also decimating the poorest of the poor
globally.

The global warmists need to take a deep breath and find (or create is more
like it) another little project to make themselves feel useful and to wax
poetic about, and spend their own money on, whatever it is, instead of
expecting all of us to bow down to their holier than thou platitudes and
hand over our cash. 





"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:45d7c36f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> A single volcanic eruption can lower average global temps by .2 to .4
>> degrees within a year or less. We could probably find a way to have a
>> significant cooling impact on the planet if we wanted. Because of that
>> I'm
>> not too concerned about warming.
>
> That's the same kind of thing I've been saying all along, but we have to
> spend money on researching ways to do just that when the time comes. The
> Mark's and Britts (and those like you underestimating the damage that
> ocean level rises cause) of the world are totally ignoring everything
> because it's either too expensive or not doable with current technology is
> going to lay us wide open in the future when it may just be too late. If
> the methane hydrate ice starts melting under the ocean, we better be ready
> to do something or quite a few of us are going to die, and moving to
> higher ground isn't the answer when you cannot grow food or have enough
> oxygen anymore. It's true this is a doom and gloom prediction that is not
> that likely, but it *has* happened before, and by high concentrations of
> CO2. (Permian extinction 95% of *all* life destroyed)
>
>> And besides, if you look at the predictions, most global warming is going
>> on in the areas where it's too fricken cold anyway (1deg change at the
>> north pole but only .2 deg change at the equator) so it may end up being
>> a good thing.
>
> That 1 degree up north means that people on coastal areas are being
> effected more and more, not to mention storm/tidal strengthening.
>
> > I am concerned about bulldozing and concreting the planet and killing
> > too
>> much of it's oxygen production capabilities.
>
> I'm less worried about that than global warming, Ocean algae (diatoms
> actually) don't like warm and that's the biggest oxygen producer on earth.
>
> --
> Bob Comer
>
>
> "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45d76e18$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> "Antti Kurenniemi" 
wrote in message
>> news:45d690d8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>>>> I agree, however it's also clear that CO2 levels are
sharply up. This
>>>> does need to be addressed even if it's not causing global warming.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't but it is *contributing* to the global climate change.
>>> There's a difference...
>>
>> A single volcanic eruption can lower average global temps by .2 to .4
>> degrees within a year or less. We could probably find a way to have a
>> significant cooling impact on the planet if we wanted. Because of that
>> I'm
>> not too concerned about warming.
>>
>> And besides, if you look at the predictions, most global warming is going
>> on in the areas where it's too fricken cold anyway (1deg change at the
>> north pole but only .2 deg change at the equator) so it may end up being
>> a good thing.
>>
>> I am concerned about bulldozing and concreting the planet and killing too
>> much of it's oxygen production capabilities.
>>
>> Geo.
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5