|
Having voted on the Friends of The Earth site earlier, I had a trawl through some of the drivel that forms the basis of their existance. When I had finished laughing at their description of this Government as "Car Loving", I came across the astonishing "Fact" that 70% of the poorest 20% 0f households in Britain don't own a car. Well, I daresay that 70% of the poorest 20% of households in Britain don't have a holiday abroad either. Perhaps we should ban all such holidays, then we would all be equal and much happier for it. Wouldn't we?
|
|
You joke but the Euro green party wants to limit overseas holidays by air to once every 5 years and they are serious.These idiots all want cloths on their backs food in their stomachs to watch TV etc and then preach for a stone age existance.When the earth is finished it finished and there is nothing I or anybody else can do about it.Cutting down on car, air travel etc will not make the iota of difference
|
Andy B,
Have you seen or heard of Bjorn Lomborg? He has written a book which debunks most of the hysterical claims made by enviro-freaks and Flat Earthers who say we are running out of this or that resource.
He says there are more oil reserves now than there were known years ago and about 5000 years worth of oil reserves locked up in shale.
He is an ex Greenpeace Professor who started looking for evidence to shoot down those who said the enviro-freaks were wrong.
He then came up with the scientific facts that show it's the beard and sandal nutters who are wrong, as many have been saying for years.
The book is called The Skeptical Environmentalist, published by Cambridge University Press.
|
|
|
The Earth won't be 'finished' by anything that mankind does. It has a capability to recover from catastrophes that we can't imagine. A full-blown nuclear war would have no real effect in terms of this planet's life.
Apart from another such catastrophe, e.g. collision with a meteorite, the only thing likely to threaten mankind is - mankind.
Unfortunately, nobody has the full answer, so neither side can call the others nutters. Any research usually takes place in a way that it can't possibly accomodate all the outside influences that bear in the real world. Anything published is just jumped on by one side or the other to 'prove' their case.
My philosophy is that I'll try very hard not to c**p on my neighbour's doorstep, if he'll show me the same consideration.
|
|
|
|
When I poked a few holes in their assertions (all based on the IPCC 'findings') that the evil car was to blame for global warming, they accused the recent ESEF report of 'sticking its head in the sand'.
So it's alright to draw ridiculous conclusions from a load of blatantly biased and inadequate hogwash, but anyone who attempts to put matters right by improving the climate models is just plain wrong!
No change there, then!
|
|
|
I am having trouble getting my head round the statistics quoted.
Does "70% of the poorest 20% of households" mean 14% of all households, mean 14% of all households? I think not, because "poorest 20%" seems to be a meaningless expression.
However, even if the figure IS 14% of all households, since this includes old age pensioners (sorry, "senior citizens"), single mums, city dwellers who do not need a car, greens who would not run a car if they won it in a raffle, etc. etc., it seems more likely that everybody who wants a car has one!
And are Friends of the Earth bemoning the fact that some people do not have a car, or are they celebrating it?
|
How about over 2/3rds of the poorest fifth of the nations household do not have a car. Whereas say almost all 99% of the nations richest fifth do have a car.
Regardless, l don't know what point is being made by using this statistic. The only true conclusion you can draw is that owning and running a car is costs more than a majority of the poorest households can afford.
Most would say its touch and go for the majority given the level of insurance, taxation etc...
On another note related to this thread, l personally don't give a rats behind about how much mineral resources we have left, we'll all be driving fusion powered hover sleds before we run truly dry. I am concerned however as to the eventual outcome of converting the earths carbon sink of millions of years back into CO2 in about 100 yrs.
What happens next? It'll take more than a celebrity panel from 'A Question of Sport' to work that one out.
dan
|
|
|
|
