Saturday, March 12, 2005

The Problems With Biology, Part II

Part I

Oh, I'll get to the Earth Firsties later, but I have to bring up this quote I found on an animal rights website.
Everything we know about HIV and AIDS has been learned from studying people with the disease. But that has not prevented millions of pounds and animals' lives from being wasted in a fruitless search for an animal 'model'. "What good does it do you to test something [a vaccine] in a monkey? You find five years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realise that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years" - Dr Mark Feinberg, leading AIDS researcher
But of course everything we know about HIV we learned from humans - that's why it's not Mus-IV or Arabidopsis-IV. But tests were needed to show that this monstrosity wasn't transmitted by common rodents such as the mouse. And there's at least one prominent blogger who seems to think that the HIV/AIDS connection is spurious at best anyway, so that throws a whole new wrench into the testing. I'm just assuming that the AR groups are going to want to infect more humans so we can do more research. *Shakes head*

After the Animal Rights groups, the next thing people think of when they hear "Biology" are the "Earth First" groups, or maybe Captain Planet (on a side note, I hated that show). These people make the Animal Rights groups look benign. Normally, I leave the abortion debate out of my comments, but I don't see how any organization can claim to be as pro-nature and living things as these people are and support abortion. I'm positive that if I was a scientist and injected a pregnant cat with a solution that would cause an abortion, these people would have my head. But no matter - consistent views aren't exactly a sticking point for these people. A lot of them secretly or even openly wish for the demise of a large number of the human race, calling us such names as "the virus", "the humanpox" and a disease.

Dave Foreman, in a 1995 interview basically said that he didn't really care about the ensuing industrial crash that his practices (environmentalism) would cause, and in fact claimed that it was inevitable. For those of you who don't know, that man is one of the founders of Earth First, and the one whom the above "humanpox" quote is attributable to. This is one of the groups that the left in general supports - and they don't mind the destruction of 5 to 95% of the entire human race! You're nothing more than a "disease", you know. Why more people aren't offended at this, I can't understand. For these people, it's humans=bad. Even the Democratic Party of the United States has its limit, and I'm sure even your average Kerry voter would say "Whoa, whoa, whoa - that's too far."

This whole "Destruction of Industrialism" gets me to the actual point of Part II - the Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming. Climateprediction.net has been running computer simulations for years, and as you can see from the link, the results are incredibly varied and don't really give much of a hint as to anything besides "Temperatures increase for 15 years and level off! Margin of error is 200 percent!". People have reported that when data from the 1970's is plugged in to a climate predictor for the 1980's, it doesn't even come close to the actual results from the '80's. So we don't even know if global warming exists.

And if it does exist? What's the first thing that will happen. A rise in sea levels due to polar ice cap melting, of course. How high are the sea levels compared to where they should be, on average in the last 500 million years? They're at their third lowest point in that time period. (Elliott, 2000; Story of Life, The: Richard Southwood, 2001). 400 mya, sea levels were approximately 400 meters above were they are now! That's one-quarter of the way to Denver!

How about those CO2 emissions? How do they stack up all time? While Carbon Dioxide is on a 50-year increase, it's also in general, on a 30-million year decline. What would environmentalists living in the Silurian period do, when Carbon Dioxide levels were between 5 and 7 times higher than they are now? (ibid) Probably whine and mope a lot, of course. We're killing the WORLD! >_< As recenty as 2003, astronomers noted global warming - on Mars. I wonder how humans are causing that. I especially want to know why it's "natural" on Mars but is automatically humans' fault here on Earth. Environmentalism is basically a religion - and they're most decidedly pushing the mythical "separation of church and state" boundary here. Would the populace be so trusting if they knew that this was a political and religious movement? Somehow I doubt it.

Now, we could certainly use less pollutants in the environment (see Los Angeles), and the idea of a non-gasoline powered car should most decidedly be looked into. However, we need time. And we need something to pass the time to use as fuel before these new-fuel powered cars become feasible AND cost-effective. That's why we need more oil for the time being. There are only three real sources of oil we can use: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.

Environmentalists (and conservationists, a similar term with kinder connotations that politically adept environmentalists call themselves) have protested drilling in the ANWR, and a good number of them believe that they're doing it to save the animals. With proper support (and this is where the conservationists SHOULD be), these animals can be kept alive and the oil can be drilled for. If we do not drill the ANWR, only the other two alternatives remain.

Remember 9/11? Where were 15 of the 19 hijackers from? That's right - Saudi Arabia. We get a LOT of our oil from Saudi Arabia. They use this money to A) Keep themselves in power, and B) Fund terrorists. The less money we give to Saudi Arabia, the less money goes to terrorists. But if we don't give the money there, and we don't drill in the ANWR, what's left?

That's right - option C. President Bush did the environmentalists and company a HUGE favor by invading Iraq and taking out Saddam - and they HATE him for it. Not only did we give 20 to 30 million people a taste of freedom (and start a domino-effect throughout the region), we gain a valuable source of oil, which means less of our monies have to go to Saudi Arabia. That means less funding for terrorists (not counting Iranian and Syrian subsidized Hizb'allah - they're next). Not only does it harm the Saudis, but it gives the greens more time to develop the next fuel - a process they should be working on instead of complaining about the war in Iraq.

So completely indirectly, President Bush is giving the Earth-lovers (which we should all be to an extent) an opportunity to end the world's demand for oil. If there's no more oil, there's no more WARS FOR OIL (as the signs say) - and with no oil contracts, that means no Halliburton! And with no Halliburton, there's no Jeff Gannon! (Sorry - I got WAY too carried away). I don't see any problems wanting a world that has no dependence on oil. We've given them time, but they are wasting it.

Support This Site