|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Dec 12, 2009 12:30 pm |
|
re: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change |
James Booth
| |
.
Efforts to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content" are worthy of praise.
A global taxation scheme based on such factual reporting does little or nothing at all to affect climate or "biological consequences"; however, it does further an ability to control what human beings do, what we produce, how we produce it, when and where, and further consolidates profits in the hands of those who currently control production and means of production, those who thus "allow" the rest of us to live only so long as we are deemed "economically viable" - aka "consumers" - rather than economically anemic *useless eaters*
One might ask why there should be an "emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and 'global change' " when there is no such "debate" regarding ongoing manufacture and use of asbestos, or disposal of nuclear waste in the form of "depleted uranium" used in armaments which poison agricultural lands humans depend on for survival; there is no approved "emotionally-charged debate" about imposing fluoride (another waste product) in public drinking water systems while "factual reports and sound commentary on new developments" regarding that substance are poo-pooed; no criminal proceedings brought against "public health officials" who approve targetting vulnerable portions of populations for spraying with insecticides and other cancer-causing and debilitating chemicals; and no "emotionally-charged debate" about continuing to discharge human and industrial wastes into our oceans.
There is a great host of such concerns which need to be addressed, soberly, and without regard for profit.
Such selection is akin to grabbing an Illinois Senator or an Arkansas Governor by the scruff of the neck and standing him up amidst a billion-dollar media campaign designed to convince an less-than-informed public that *they* chose him to run for office.
There are profits to be made in each case, and in each case the "accounting" has been meticulously done well ahead of the decision to "approve" such an issue, or "candidate"
... and the ways the "issue" or the election will further chip away at the Constitution are already built in to the selections, prior to any announcements.
Helping "students and teachers gain greater insight into the biological aspects of this (or any) phenomenon" is likewise welcome.
Telling us how, and even WHAT, to think, however, is not now, nor will it ever be, acceptable.
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth (new win) |
|
| |
|
