Click adsense and win new car speakers !

START SAVING YOUR TIME AND MONEY!

Order your medication in 3 easy steps:

1. Search our alphabetical index of medications to view great prices and detailed drug information.

2. To place an order, find your medication and click “Buy now”

3. Click on “Checkout” to complete your order!

ADVANTAGES OF SHOPPING WITH US:

1. Convenience – open round the clock, unlike your regular drug store to meet all your medicinal needs;

2. Security – any personal information and purchases you make remains private;

3. Quality – we sell only genuine drugs;

4. Easy Usage – easy ordering process, with clear and easy to understand instructions;

5. Guaranteed Lowest Prices on the Internet – no comments, check prices now!

Our online pharmacy is the perfect resource for people to get their drugs without any hassles or awkwardness. We work hard to make sure you save money every time you shop with us. At our online store, you pay less and get more.

To make sure we keep offering you great values, we regularly check prices on our top-selling items at chain drugstores. In addition, we scour the Internet to find bargains offered by other companies – and usually match or beat their promotional offers.

Shop now! [url=http://pharma37.com]pharma37.com[/url]

I think I agree on most of your points and you would have to be a moron not to be a good steward of resources and the environment but this sensible course of action was not what I was referring to.

There was a scientific conferance in the U.S. earlier this year when a noble prize winner made the statement that ”the best thing that could happen to the planet would be if the ebola virus mutated and killed half of the worlds population”.He received a standing ovation.

It is this attitude that places the environment above humans that I was referring to.Also I think the green movement does not give credit for how far we have come.The amount of toxins etc that was in put into the environment during the industrial revolution but due to a variety of reasons this has been sorted.Compare Victorian London with the present.

As for global warming it is an interesting theory but the way it gets pushed as a fact in the most alarming terms just makes me a cynic.I am much more concerned with what is going on with the GM industry.Now if a terminater gene mutated and affected the worlds food now that is a ”dooms day” scenario.But this whole industry plows along with hardly a mention.I voted for the greens just on this issue so I am not unaware or unconcerned of these issues.

You’re right, environmental activism is a religion to some. But to others it is just rational thinking. It is simply not in our interests to severely disrupt an environment that our comfort, economies and lives are deeply entwined with, in complex ways that we sometimes have a poor understanding of. ‘End-times’ scenario’s are often the very realistic consequences of not changing our behaviour to acknowledge this.

When waste products are produced which have obvious consequences on short-time scales we have no problem with taxing their production. The end-time scenario for not constructing sewage systems is us being buried in excrement. We’ve realised this and nowadays people pay taxes that maintain and build sewage systems.

We find it more challenging to deal with medium-scale consequences. In much of the developed world industrial pollution must now be made inert before being released into the environment. The end-times scenario for us is death and deformity by poison. Industry pays to neutralise these toxins, and now most people agree this is good. They value long-term health over short-term economic benefit. I think this is a good thing too – does that make me a fanatic? But in many cases this had to be fought hard for, and it is still not the case in parts of the developing world – market forces just don’t work without a cost being put on pollutants.

A medium-long-term issue, in Australia, is salinity. This is a serious and expensive environmental problem over much of the land. A result of land clearance and inappropriate agricultural practices. Once upon a time it wasn’t known that salinity would be a problem in Australia. Then there was some evidence of it in the 1890s, but it wasn’t until 1925 that it was generally accepted in science. Despite this there are some that still don’t acknowledge that it is the serious problem that it is. Would you consider the people that first observed this to be driven by religious beliefs?
(http://www.abc.net.au/learn/silentflood/faqs.htm)
A tax on land clearing and bad practices might have made a difference. Without them, the market didn’t save us.

But global warming is tougher then this – it’s long term. Some people still argue that there isn’t any evidence for it (though not Lomborg) and that it isn’t worth doing anything about it (Lomberg). A problem with global warming is that the science allows for effects that may not be blindingly obvious at this time, and which may be difficult to do anything about by the time they become obvious (a bit like salinity). So people like your brother can jump up and down claiming that global warming ‘alarmists’ are just religious nuts. But given the complexity of the issue, it is people, perhaps like your brother, who display religious fanaticism. Their irrational belief that they are saved, through an unwavering faith in market-forces/natural-variation/superman is perhaps interfering with rational decision making. Given that market forces don’t seem to work when the resource being damaged is

a) free,
b) damaged slowly

it seems to me that a carbon tax might be a very sensible precaution right now. Perhaps also an opportunity to prove that there really is intelligent life on earth, that we can learn from past mistakes, and that we’re not ruled by our religious beliefs.

“Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries”
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/mann1998.pdf

And I assume you have? If you have done so (reading scientific journals), then what paper or papers in climate modelling that you have read? Can you quote some of them. I am trying to establish you if just blindly adopted the verdict of the consensus scientists or you have read some papers and made up your mind.

I have read the Hockey-Stick paper of Prof. Mann and there are many holes in the modeling techniques used in that publication. You can get the picture if someone is modeling something by adopting either wrong techniques, inefficient preparations of data, or just wrong formulations of hypothesis to start with. If someone starts with a wrong formulations , then of course he/she would arrived at a wrong conclusions.

In terms of rail-

1. I agree it is not the answer to our inner city transport problems in the main centres.

2. In terms of weight/energy, I would guess that if say a train can carry 500 passengers at a time and you divide the total weight and the total energy requirements across all the passengers it may work out less PER PASSANGER than if all of those people were driving their own cars carrying 1 person with 4 empty seats like most people do on Auckland’s motorways.

3. Rail could be put to use in many ways that it is not presently. Considering that we have a good main trunk rail network, the number of trucks on our roads doing line haul is absurd.

Also it can be used for hubbing containerised freight in and out of ports for import/export, reducing the amount of prime waterfront land required for container storage, and reducing truck congestion on the waterfronts. This could become efficient if containers could be discharged from vessels straight onto rail wagons for movement to an inland hub so that you are still only looking at one container movement at the wharf to discharge a container.

It is also a useful tool considering the consolidation going on with shipping lines. Port of Tauranga are already receiving vessels which discharge cargo bound for Tauranga, Auckland, Wellington and Lyttelton in one port call, and then railing the containers to the final destinations.

In terms of roading-

I have quite some time ago now on another thread on this blog outlined a case for removing petrol tax, removing subsidies on public transport and tolling the roads.

With tolling in place to keep the motorways moving at optimum, buses become competetive without subsidy, and the effeciency of our road network increases massively.

The north shore busway is an absolute waste of money at $300,000,000. All it does is pour hundreds of millions more of taxpayer/ratepayer money into subsidy, and the motorways are only going to clog up more and more with or without the busway, because we aren’t pricing use of the motorway network at it’s full value to the end user.

The heliophysical coupling(earth_sun)has been a well studied phenomena in all its manisfestations of dissipative process’s.

The theory of course is made up of a number of astrophysical laws,the most important being Petrovs and the Kolmogorov laws.As this is the theme of the international heliophysical year with a substantial number of joint academies papers having being presented including most of the WCRP soalr physicists(the wcrp sets the research for the IPCC) you will see a lot of explaining to do by certain climate( experts)

As we have seen this year as predicted the intense solar minima has already reduced temperatures by around 1c and SST by 1.5c.
Explain that.

And there’s the money shot, right there. Well done David. AGW is their great shining hope to smash capitalism – or at least remould it in their own ‘social democrat’ image.

I can’t see much new in this GW stuff its just the “reshaping the international order/club of rome type stuff round 30 yrs ago – wealth redistributors playing the green card.

http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf

You mean, when we reach a consensus?

Our fisheries are being raped and no one is doing anything serious to stop it. All it would take is short term pain for long term gain.

There are major environmental issues facing NZ that are being swept under the carpet and that’s why I’m so sceptical of the GW/CC feeding trough/smoke screen, call it what you will.

eg

- urban sprawl – using up all the good farmland and coastland we rely on for primary production, leisure and tourism – in all parties “too hard to do bin” because they would have to take on the construction industry.
- and its associated issue – the emerging fact that many of these subdivisions going back 50 years or more are on unstable land that never should have been built on in the first place!
- marine benthic protected areas jack off forced on us by the government/iwi/fishing industry complex – that only protects the areas from bottom trawling that you cant bottom trawl anyway.

We here in New Zealand are already starting down this track, which is good. But without a decent navy/air force I have no idea how we are going to enforce any fishing bans…