RCM ONLY


On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:58:42 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Harold and Susan Vordos" quickly quoth:


How many of our own citizens have turned their back on their own country for
a few lousy bucks, spying for the enemy?

Yes, sad, but the list is fairly short. It just seems longer due to
the massive coverage in the media.


I'm afraid you've hit the nail smack on the head. There's not much
people won't do for a fast buck.

Like the alarmist scientists who are bowing to Global Warming(Kumbaya)
because they have sold their souls for continued funding?

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
RCM ONLY


On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:58:42 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Harold and Susan Vordos" quickly quoth:


How many of our own citizens have turned their back on their own country
for
a few lousy bucks, spying for the enemy?

Yes, sad, but the list is fairly short. It just seems longer due to
the massive coverage in the media.

Chuckle!

OK, then. As long as only a few are screwing us over, I guess that's
acceptable. For a moment, I thought that none would have been a better
number. :-)

Harold

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:00:30 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Harold and Susan Vordos" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
RCM ONLY


On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:58:42 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Harold and Susan Vordos" quickly quoth:


How many of our own citizens have turned their back on their own country
for
a few lousy bucks, spying for the enemy?

Yes, sad, but the list is fairly short. It just seems longer due to
the massive coverage in the media.

Chuckle!

OK, then. As long as only a few are screwing us over, I guess that's
acceptable. For a moment, I thought that none would have been a better
number. :-)

Of COURSE a zero number of spies would be ideal, but you're reacting
to them like you are to Hawke and crew: in fear rather than knowledge.

From Parade Magazine:
--snip--
From world overpopulation to Y2K to killer bees, many of the dangers
we're warned about never materialize. Isn't it time for some healthy
skepticism?

By Michael Crichton
Published: December 5, 2004
This year I turned 62, and I find I have acquired—along with aches and
pains—a perspective on the world that I lacked as a younger person. I
now recognize that for most of my life I have felt burdened by highly
publicized fears that decades later did not turn out to be true.I was
reminded of this when I came across this 1972 statement about climate:
“We simply cannot afford to gamble…We cannot risk inaction. Those
scientists who [disagree] are acting irresponsibly. The indications
that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be
reasonably ignored.” This author wasn’t concerned about global
warming. He was worried about global cooling and the coming ice age.

We’re all going to freeze! Or is it sizzle?
It may be mostly forgotten now, but back then many climate scientists
shared his concern: Temperatures around the world had fallen steadily
for 30 years, dropping half a degree in the Northern Hemisphere
between 1945 and 1968. Pack ice was increasing. Glaciers were
advancing. Growing seasons had shortened by two weeks in only a few
years.In 1975, Newsweek noted “ominous signs that weather patterns
have begun to change…with serious political implications for just
about every nation.” Scientists were predicting that “the resulting
famines could be catastrophic.”

But it is now clear that even as Newsweek was printing its fears,
temperatures already had begun to rise. Within a decade, scientists
would be decrying a global warming trend that threatened to raise
temperatures as much as 30 degrees in the 21st century. Such
predictions implied palm trees in Montana, and they have since been
revised downward. By 1995, the UN midrange estimates were about 4
degrees over the next 100 years. Although concern about warming
remains, the prospect of catastrophic change seems increasingly
unlikely.

Oh no, it’s a population explosion!
Similarly, for all of my adult life, informed people have lived in
continual anxiety about an exploding world population and the
inevitable resulting mass starvation and environmental degradation. In
the 1960s, experts like Paul Ehrlich spoke with conviction: “In the
1970s the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people
are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich argued for compulsory
population control if voluntary methods failed. In the 1970s, The Club
of Rome (a global think tank) predicted a world population of 14
billion in the year 2030, with no end in sight. Instead, fertility
rates fell steadily. By the end of the century, they were about half
what they were in 1950, with the result that many now expect world
population to peak at 9 billion or so and then to decline. (It’s
estimated to be about 6 billion today.)

And mass starvation never occurred either. Instead, per capita food
production increased through the end of the century because of the
“green revolution” resulting from increased agricultural efficiency
and better seeds. Grain production increased as much as 600% per acre,
bringing unprecedented crop yields around the world. These changes
were exemplified by the rise of India, which in the 1960s was widely
acknowledged to be a symbol of the overpopulation disaster. Western
children were chided to finish their food because of the starving
children in India. By 2000, however, India had become a net exporter
of grain, and Americans were worried about outsourced jobs to that
nation’s highly educated workforce. Almost no one concerned about
population spoke of an explosion anymore. Instead, they discussed the
new problems: an aging population and a declining population.

We’re running out...of everything!
The 1970s saw the use of computers to predict future world trends. In
1972, The Club of Rome used its computers to warn us that raw
materials were fast running out. By 1993 we would have exhausted our
supplies of gold, mercury, tin, zinc, oil, copper, lead and natural
gas. Yet 1993 came and went. We still have all these things, at prices
that fluctuate but over the long term have generally declined. What
seems to be more accurate is that there is a perennial market for dire
predictions of resource depletion. Human beings never tire of
discussing the latest report that tells us the end is near. But, at
some point, we might start regarding each breathless new claim with
skepticism. I have learned to do so.

The machines are taking over!
Any catalog of false fears and counterfeit crises must include
examples of the ever-present threat posed by technology. Nobody of my
generation will ever forget the looming crisis of too much leisure
time, an issue much discussed in the 1960s. Since machines would soon
be doing all our work, we needed to learn watercolor painting and
macramé to pass the time. Yet, by the end of the century, Americans
were regarded as overworked, overstressed and sleepless. The crisis of
leisure time had gone the way of the paperless office.

More sinister were the health threats posed by technology, such as the
fears about cancer from power lines. The great power-line scare lasted
more than a decade and, according to one expert, cost the nation $25
billion before many studies determined it to be false. Ironically, 10
years later, the same magnetic fields that were formerly feared as
carcinogenic now were welcomed as healthful. People attached magnets
(the best ones were imported from Japan) to their legs and backs, or
put magnetic pads on their mattresses, in order to experience the
benefits of the same magnetic fields they previously had avoided.
Magnet therapy even became a new treatment for depression.

Be very afraid!
Along with all the big fears have been dozens of lesser ones:
saccharin, swine flu, cyclamates, endocrine disrupters, deodorants,
electric razors, fluorescent lights, computer terminals, road rage,
killer bees—the list goes on and on. In this tradition, the
association of cell phones and brain cancer has emerged as a
contemporary concern, flourishing despite a lack of conclusive
evidence of any direct link. I was drawn to one British study which
suggested that cellular radiation actually improved brain function,
but it got little publicity. And, of course, the best-documented
hazard from cell phones—their use while driving—is largely ignored.
(Handheld cell phones are only marginally more dangerous than speaker
phones. The real danger comes from using a phone at all while
driving.)

Fittingly, the century ended with one final, magnificent false fear:
Y2K. For years, computer experts predicted a smorgasbord of horrors,
ranging from the collapse of the stock market to the crash of
airplanes. Some people withdrew their savings, sold their houses and
moved to higher ground. In the end, nobody seemed to notice much of
anything at all.

“I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never came to
pass,” Mark Twain is supposed to have said. At this point in my life,
I can only agree. So many fears have turned out to be untrue or wildly
exaggerated that I no longer get so excited about the latest one.
Keeping fears in perspective leads me to ignore most of the
frightening things I read and hear—or at least to take them with a
pillar of salt. For a time I wondered how it would feel to be without
these fears and the frantic nagging concerns at the back of my mind.
Actually, it feels just fine. I recommend it.

Michael Crichton earned his medical degree in 1969 but chose to pursue
a writing career rather than become a physician. He is the author of
many best-selling books—including “The Andromeda Strain,” “Jurassic
Park” and “Prey”—and the creator of the TV series “ER.” His new novel,
“State of Fear,” will be published on Tuesday by HarperCollins.
--snip--

And from Patrick Michaels: http://tinyurl.com/3b6qz8 Gored Nobel
sigh

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck