[MD] A reply or two for Platt

[Matt poot]

Hi Platt,

sorry, i have been quite busy.  only have a short time.  I have again 
seperated the 3 sections

=======================================================

to get bent, you said you needed:
>Examples of a global detrimental effect?

Poot:  What scale are you looking for?  there has never been anything that 
has encompassed the globe.  not even WWI or WWII (despite their names)  .  
Examples of rampant pollution causing direct environmental or human harm are 
as plentiful as places of battle during the wars.  Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, 
Bhopal (india), ....I could make a really long list if need be.


I said previously that:> > overfishing (I.E. The cod fishery
> > no longer exists in Canada due to over fishing,

You reply:>The passenger pigeon was hunted to distinction. No great loss.  
Fish farms
>are the thing of the future. As for going out of business, so did the
>sardine canneries of Southern California, affecting the local economy.


Poot:  Passenger pigeons?  the fishing industry was the economic engine for 
the entire eastern provinces of Canada (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New 
Brunswick, PEI [still has potatoes though]).  The unemployment rate in those 
provinces following the moratorium on the cod (and other types) fisheries 
skyrocketed, leaving the economies of those provinces shattered.

a summary:  farmed salmon actually represent a 'net loss' of protein in the 
global food supply as it takes from two to five kilos of wild fish to grow 
one kilo of salmon

Fish Farming?  SO, is this a model of effieciency and intelligence?

-Sewage from farms pollutes surrounding waters.
-Drugs, including antibiotics, are required to keep farmed fish healthy.
-Escapes of farmed fish (alien species) threaten native wild fish.
-Net loss: Farmed fish are fed pellets made from other fish - depleting 
other fish species on a global scale


Read more here: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Aquaculture/Salmon/


I, speaking on agriculture said:
> > ruining the eastern
> > economy) and "Factory" farming (Alberta and U.S. states are having large
> > problems with water contamination with salmonella, and dont forget Mad
> > Cow).

You reply: Farmers have had  problems with bacteria ever since they began 
farming,
>not to mention floods and droughts..


I reply: 
http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/livestockopt/papers/olson.pdf

This is a report on the runoff problems involved with high-density 
"factory-farms" from the Province of Manitoba (agriculture the main 
industry).

I said: > > Also, perhaps you remember Exxon Valdez?  It is not an isolated
> > incident.

you reply:Isolated in terms of its global impact, yes.

Really?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster

I guess 15 000 human deaths isn't that much....if not more.


I showed a diagram of norway here:

> > Here is an animation of "Green" (undeveloped/unharvested) tracts of land 
>in
> > Norway from 1900-1992
> > http://www.globio.info/region/europe/norway/Norway_anim.html
>

You reply:
>Don't know about Norway, but the U.S. has about the same area of forest
>land as it did in 1920 even though population has increased 143 percent in
>that time. Maybe Bo can shed some light on the situation in Norway.


I reply to that:  Have you been watching those pretty aerial view 
commercials aired on T.V?
Have you investigated the subject?  The reason there is the same amount, is 
due to mass replanting .  This is a good thing.

However, man-made forests do not compare in any way to forests in place.  
Existing forests developed over many thousands of years.  The red-woods are 
at less than 10% of early coverage in the 20th century.  The old growth 
forests are following similar trends.

who cares?  logging industry is important!   Old growth forests recycle more 
carbon dioxide than any other type of forests/ecosystems on earth.  I 
suppose also that the Amazon, now at 2/3rds of its size from the beginning 
of the 20th century is also not important.

these do not have global affects, because???  perhaps if you investigate 
further into the subjects, you can discover evidence to the contrary?  
please.


Platt:>Not surprisingly the article is slanted against Bush. The US Senate
>rejected the Kyoto treaty in 1997 by a vote of 95-0. I have referenced a
>number of climate scientists who reject the doom and gloom forecasts
>of global warming proponents.

Poot:  read this:  a 268-page report submitted to the United Nations, the US 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) endorsed what many scientists have 
long argued - that human activities such as oil refining, power generation 
and car emissions are significant causes of global warming.

so now the E.P.A is also a liberal conspiracy because they disagree with 
bush.  makes sense.

Poot

=================================================



Sections 2 and 3 to come later.... I reaaally have to go now.


thanks for your patience.



poot
>

_________________________________________________________________
Your Space. Your Friends. Your Stories. Share your world with Windows Live 
Spaces. http://spaces.live.com/?mkt=en-ca