: Qx: I checked out the website and the personalities named and matched them up to the name search in this website. For all the masquerading as "skeptics" I have to admit that most of what I'm viewing at the link you provided is backed up by big money.
Look at the scientific integrity not the names. A person isnt right or wrong because he is associated with one or another organisation.
: Qx: Is that right? I thought such things as economics was another area where promoting free market attitudes and promising a better tommorrow
Its already shown how in free markets far more poeple get far more. It doesnnt promise 'better' as some value judgement, nor any kind of egalitarianism.
: Qx: I'd like to see the sources and references for these assertions
The article did not list them, at least not the one I found on the web (the original may have done). Youre correct to look for further evidence. But not to dismiss on the basis that I dont personally seek it out.
: Qx: Calling someone another's "mentor" is one way of demening credibility but if you're a pseudo-conservative it's enjoyable and makes for great sport.
Ive seen many psuedo-liberals use the 'make emn sound small or kooky' tactics in describing anyone who disagrees. Its a common tactic. Anyway, the contention - that population predictions were grossly incorrect is true, and that there has been little discrediting as a result is also true. The timeframe simple gets shifted along for the next generation to fret over.
: Qx: He does nothing other than state this claim to be a fact. Where's the back up? Has he never heard of farmers being paid by the government to let fields lie fallow so as to not further collapse crop prices?
Sounds like a bad practice. Think of how much cheaper food would be and how much people could then contribute to other activities.
: Has he even take into consideration the fact that some fields do require to be left fallow?
I wouldnt know, leaving fallow is for farmers to decide.
: Qx: Fact: Ever heard of the 1930's?
yes, 70 years ago and not since. Drought too.
: By the way was receiving a stipend that bad Gee?
If the output was dangerously misleading then yes.
: Qx: CAFE standards? That's an interesting jab at so-called liberal environmentalists and really nothing more than an expression of childish resentments on WW's part. Lets' take a look at this "downsizing of autos". First of all American automobiles only began to become smaller when it became evident that smaller (and inexpensive imports) performed just as well. Now this bit about causing "unnecessary highway deaths". This is the fault of environmentalists? I doubt it bud. If one even looks at North American vehicles maunfactured before the "Energy Crisis" of the early 1970's one can see how dangerous manmy of them were. Ever seen pictures of people impaled on steering wheels Gee? Ever wondered why auto glass shatters into little bitty cubes instead of just being long nasty shards that do much more heinous damage? Remember the recent lawsuit won by plaintiffs against a buig American car maker for pruposefully keeping the gas tank so close to rear bumper? That isn't the fault of environmnetalists. That's a corporate crime.
I think he was talking about a specific issue, not fuel tanks. These other points are unrelated.
: WW: The next time an environmentalist warns us of disaster, we ought to ask: When was the last time your prediction was right?"
: : by Walter Williams
: Qx: And we should also be balanced enough to question the anti-environmentalist agenda by looking at what kind of people and oprganizations fund the attack on warnings of ecological problems.
Exactly, dont take an environmentalists word for it any more. Be thoroughly critical in analysis of both sets of evidence, not just the one you personally dont like.