Hi! I'm Dr. Santana! I love your site! Looking for Viagra?
order viagra order viagra
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA-ONLINE-CHEAP!-_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Mr. Goth, wake up and smell reality!

The book, "Infinity's Rainbow: The Politics of Energy, Climate and Globalization," proves that the ones most vulnerable to peak oil and climate change will be the most Westernized societies. As people move to the cities, they lose their ability to grow their own food. As people become dependent upon industrialized agriculture (which is directly dependent upon petroleum), they become vulnerable to famine and can easily be controlled by those who control the food (Mr. Goth, being from Somalia, should remember the warlords who caused famine by withholding food there back in the 1990s).

Westerners have also lost the ability to just know what it is that we are eating -- industrialized food production is not our friend an ally, and they would poison us without any compunction if it is profitable for them. If you doubt this, consider the **voluntary** recalls of meat when an e-coli breakout occurs. The reason that it is **voluntary** is that our corrupt government has forfeited its duty to protect the people by having frequent inspections and genuine consequences for illegal activities.

"Infinity's Raibow" is by author Michael P. Byron. It packs an enormous wallop of hard science into a short and easily readable format. I most highly recommend it.

That is a fact that global worming exist. It is also a fact the US economy depends on fossil fuel products. We all need to scarifies to help mother earth to heal. But lets be realistic in the US driving a hybrid car considered helping the environment, and that all you hear for the scientific communities SUV… ect . On the other hand if you telling me shut down the factories in developing countries which the survival ( death or alive)of people depends on that is taking too far. Giving up your SUV VS giving up your life….
On the series note Africa can not afford to worry about Global worming, when your whole day work is almost enough to put food in your stomach you are not thinking about global worming. Also why Africa and the poor have to be told what to think all the time when the US bans the fossil fuel, then we can force others to do so.

Until recently, I understood the frustration Mr. Goth is expressing and held an agnostic view on the degree to which developing countries should restrict their use of fossil fuels (some cuts, yes).

Most of the comments here have helped me see the illogic of this continued allowance, including where the bulk of climate change problems will hit.

But a comment I read the other day convinced me that any argument excusing developing countries' continued use of fossil fuels because of Western historical use sealed it for me:

Mr. Goth - Most of the Western economies also grew because of their reliance on slavery. Should we permit developing countries to do so also, despite the cost to our civilization, so that they can catch up to the West, or should we impose prohibit them from using slaves?

Mr. Goth:

With all due respect for the unique perspective you bring to this issue as a Somali and with appreciation for your first-hand experience with the legacies of imperialism and colonialism, I cannot help but strongly disagree with your comments.

As a U.S. minority group member, I can certainly appreciate that you approach all information and pronouncements from -- and actions of -- the West with a healthy measure of skepticism. I sincerely believe, however, that such skepticism is highly misplaced when it comes to the issues of global climate change, its antecedents and factors that exacerbate global warming. Almost without exception, credible and respected scientists agree that human activity is accelerating global warming. Corporate entities and their allies in various governments (e.g. President Bush and his administration) do roll out a small number of scientists who question the seriousness of the problem; however, their opinions are clearly in the minority within the global scientific community.

Global warming is a real and growing problem that poses a dire threat to humanity. Suggesting that the alarms being raised about the danger of climate change are part of some conspiracy by industrialized countries to stifle the economic growth of developing nations diverts needed and immediate attention from the issue. Suggesting that poorer nations ignore the science and emulate the irrational positions, approaches and growth models of other governments does a disservice to the residents of developing countries.

The failure to address global warming is a lose-lose proposition for all countries. It cannot be gainsaid that Somalia has the right to behave as stupidly as other nations. The question is why should Somalia? Why not use the vast intellectual capacity in Africa to try and create development and industrialization models that reflect the folly of continued reliance on fossil fuels? Why shouldn't lesser-developed countries explore the possible benefits of solar, wind and wave energy, for example? Why shouldn't the answer to the problem of global warming come from innovative and leading-edge research conducted in Africa, Asia or Latin America? You noted that Somalia has five univerisities, and I would suggest that these univerisites could be incubators for new ideas.

No one can seriously expect that most African, Asian or Latin American countries have -- or will have in the near future-- the capital or resources to adopt alternative energy models as a primary engine of economic growth. One can only hope that, in most of those countries, there will be serious discussion, exploration and consideration of the global warming issue.

Hopefully, common sense, rationality and logic will prevail over narrow self-interest, greed, suspicion and illogic before it is too late. The alternative is that humanity will imitate the behavior of lemmings and eventually go over the cliff of self-detruction and fall into the abyss of what once was.

Thank you Mr. Goth for an enlightening article. There is no doubt that at least some of the global warming doom saying is politically motivated: the west can't solve the problem it created with its own industrialization, so lets make it the problem of the developing world. The west eats vastly more meat than the developing world and raises vastly more cattle and sheep than Africa and Asia do. Why isn't the fault of methane overload with U.S. beef?

The process of conversion of methane into breathable atmosphere is not understood yet, though according to the latest space research findings, a methane atmosphere existed before an oxygen atmosphere evolved. There is no reason to believe that the methane, which the African sheep and camels exhale, has not a positive effect on the planet. Or why would they have evolved that way?

When will the U.S. turn vegetarian to solve global warming? When will the west renounce private cars to cut down on emissions?

There isn't much to doubt that human kind will eventually die of its own toxic waste. That model is known from bacteria and larger wild animals. Every species has its birth, life span and extinction - to let the planet recover; like the dinosaurs who also ate their atmosphere and produced a new ice age.

Should that be reason not to try to delay human extinction? I don't think so. But I believe that the world as a total has to deal with all the problems in an integrated way. That means an end to political dominations, exploitation and dictates. It means universal access by all to technology of any kind, which can provide energy with less pollution; which can produce and distribute food and clean water to all places on earth; which can bring whatever means mankind has to alleviate pain to all.

The most endangered resource is peace.

The worst pollution comes from wars. War physically pollutes the environment often in irreversible ways. It also emotionally pollutes the people exposed to war.

The U.S. foreign policy interests require continual destabilization of all oil bearing regions of the world to solidify American hegemony. Why should such hegemony be desirable? The west can't live without slaves and oil. The U.S. economy cannot exist without oil. Alternative energy was never developed because the patents were bought up by the oil industry and development frozen. Hence the insistence that the Third World now solve the problem of global warming from burning fossil fuels, because the west cannot live with the restrictions that imposes.

Don't kill the camels.

The African camels will exist long after oil is gone. They have a much longer history of usefulness quite free of pollution.

I'm really glad to see the reaction of the majority of the readers. Mr. Goth, people like you don't understand that greatest devastations of the sudden climatic changes will be borne by poor and developing countries of Africa and Asia, and whether you like it or not, the western countries are comparatively well-equipped to handle such catastrophes. It's like saying, "First you screwed mother earth, guys, and now its our turn."

I'm not saying the western world should tell us how to manage our resources, but even a small child knows that fossil fuels cause pollution. Don't you have children Mr. Goth? Aren't you worried what sort of air they are going to breath and what sort of water they are going to drink? You are just playing in the hands of the oil lobby.

There are efficient alternatives to fossil fuels, they are just not being highlighted so that people are forced to use oil and other pollution-causing energy "resources".

Talking about the African cattle, I agree with you, this is something that is beyond any body's help. It's like saying the volcanoes pollute so they should be capped.

Dear Mr. Goth,

Make no mistake: Global warming will hurt poor countries far more than it hurts rich ones.

Rivers in India and Africa will dry up, depriving hundreds of millions of their very livelihoods. Croplands will turn to deserts. Monsoons, floods, and hurricanes will strike hard at the warm countries of the global South. All of these disasters will affect rich countries too, but rich countries will be able to cope with these changes far better than poor ones.

It would be nice if this were a hoax. It would be nice if by admitting "dissenting voices" to climate change conferences we could actually change the reality of global warming. But it is not a hoax, and "dissenting voices" will still be incorrect no matter where they speak. We cannot wish or fudge global warming out of existence.

And when the resource boom is over and oil fields dry up a few decades from now, where will that leave the economies of Nigeria, Sudan, etc.? It will leave them without the technology to build real industrial bases, even as their exploding populations are left displaced and impoverished by global warming.

These are not doomsday predictions. These things are already happening.

It is for the sake of the world's poor that we must halt global warming. Otherwise, they will be the ones under water while the rich world stays high and dry.

Mr. Goth,

You neglect to mention that while the currently developed world was developing, they were unaware of the negative affects of fossil fuel consumption on the environment.

Thanks to the flattening world, and the improving education systems that you mentioned, the currently developing nations have that knowledge and the subsequent responsibility to themselves to try to develop in a sustainable manner, both economically and environmentally.

It may not be fair, but it is necessary.

For some reasons, Mr Goth's article sounds extremely familiar to me. In fact, it is the same thing I listen to every day over here, in a little-known Latin American country. Let's summarize it:

- We are poor, we deserve to be rich. We don't want to compete in the global world. We don't want to be efficient, honest, trustworthy. We just want to be rich.

- The U.S. is responsible for global warming (good Europe is not, friendly China is not). So, the U.S. is responsible for cooling the world now.

- We are not responsible for global warming. Our forests disappear, our water is mismanaged, our agricultural land is abandoned, our factories don't comply with any rules, our cars do pollute... but we are not responsible for any of that. We are poor, you know.

- Anyway, since we have some oil reserves, oil will finance our development. So we don't really want any serious measure against fossil fuels. The longer the world keeps swallowing oil the better.

This way of thinking is gaining support all over here.

This article is mostly an unsubstantiated, paranoid rant by an author who is completely unfamiliar with facts. Yes, we need to assist developing countries. But here's a suggestion:

READ THE LONG EMERGENCY BY JAMES HOWARD KUNSTLER

All countries of the world need to wake up to the fact that we are at, or past, "peak" oil production. The consequences of declining worldwide oil supplies in the face of increasing demand will send shock waves through humanity in the next 50 years.

The era of cheap, widely available oil is coming to and end. Everyone can whine about it, but everyone will be affected as well.

Global warming is real, but burning fossil fuels will not last very much longer anyway.

Mr. Goth-

It seems that selfish naysayers the world over are united in their quest for money and power- consequences be damned.

I find your viewpoint almost as sad as the selfish naysayers is my country who wish to simply continue with businass as usual, burning fosil fuels and dominating the world with dreams of empire and oil. They pay lip service to "energy independence" - a concept that you have rightly pegged as alarmist rhetoric.

They're the ones who got us into this mess, the ones you have such an intense (and justified) hatred for. They're also just as happy as you are to ignore the pleas of the world's scientific community and burn this planet out of existence.

The report projects that the world's semi-arid regions will see temperature increases disproportionately more severe than in other ares - severe disruptions in water supplies and arable land. Perhaps you should take into account that they may be right, and factor that into your geopolitical calculations.

Perhaps you see those forecasts as scare tactics, an attempt to derail african and middle eastern development by diverting resources into unneccesary preparations for a phantom apocalypse.

Or perhaps you acknowledge that if the forecasts are correct, it would be so devastatingly awful for africa and the middle east, so destabilizing to those economies and cultures, that any action that might be taken now would be utterly useless.

And so the easy fallback position is selfishness. Blithe disregard for the consequences of the actions you advocate. Your search for respectable dissenting voices in the scientific community is a pathetic excuse for your selfishness. Go ahead and trace the funding of those 2500 scientists - then find a handful who disagree with them, and trace their funding - right back to the oil industry.

Who do you think you're fooling? You're advocating the path of certain self-destruction to those nations that are most at risk of being destablilzed by global warming.

Sure, easy for me to say living a comfortable life here in New York - my emissions and income alone are likely greater than those of the next 100 somalis you see put together. But that doesn't exempt me from responsibility to make sacrifices, cut my emissions and use my money to support a green economy.

Personally, I'd like to see the U.S. adopt a wholesale shift from fossil fues to renewables - even if that results in a severe economic downturn and the loss of my own job. I'll find something to do to feed my family.

I hope that those renewable technologies are given away freely to the developing world, that would be a much better influence than the rabidly reactionary advice of people like you. My worst fear is that your kind of voice will prevail, that nothing will be done to slow the onrushing devastation of climate change, and that my children and grandchildren will be doomed to a ruined world because of your shortsightedness.

I congratulate Mr. Goth for rightly sees into the lines of the pharisiac scientists funded by the luxurious West. They are not saying anything about decreasing their luxuries, travelling by the public transporting systems etc. but only about the problems of CO2 emission of India, China and the developing countries.