Organic trailblazer accept GE! - Aquaponic Gardening2024-03-29T16:00:13Zhttps://aquaponicgardening.ning.com/forum/topics/organic-trailblazer-except-ge?commentId=4778851%3AComment%3A460050&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThanks, I do try to keep an o…tag:aquaponicgardening.ning.com,2013-10-24:4778851:Comment:5256382013-10-24T19:42:06.665ZAlex Veidelhttps://aquaponicgardening.ning.com/profile/AlexVeidel
<p>Thanks, I do try to keep an open mind about science :) I mutually encourage you to keep an open mind too.</p>
<p>It's not that I think science is purposefully trying to mislead anybody, but I think we put a undeserved, god-like mentality on scientists sometimes. Scientific truth is infallible (hence, the definition of truth), but scientists are not. Scientists have been wrong before and it's bound to happen again, there's simply too much to the universe to get it right. We have yet to…</p>
<p>Thanks, I do try to keep an open mind about science :) I mutually encourage you to keep an open mind too.</p>
<p>It's not that I think science is purposefully trying to mislead anybody, but I think we put a undeserved, god-like mentality on scientists sometimes. Scientific truth is infallible (hence, the definition of truth), but scientists are not. Scientists have been wrong before and it's bound to happen again, there's simply too much to the universe to get it right. We have yet to explain how yawning works :)</p>
<p>Funny thing about truth: it has a complete disregard for how many people believe it, so the number of people who agree or disagree doesn't really count as evidence for anything (although, it definitely gives you more reason to consider what they are saying). There are intelligent people who have done their research on both sides of the global warming argument, and they have come to separate conclusions. It's not so simple as "these people are scientists and say this, while those quacks over there who completely disregard science are choosing ignore facts". Not saying anyone here is doing that, but it is a common position people on both sides of the argument take.</p>
<p>I don't want to give more weight to one side or the other, but I would like to level the playing field a little by explaining something about science that a lot of people seem to have forgotten. Science can't <em>prove</em> the future and it can't <em>prove</em> the past. The scientific method relies on observation and since we weren't there in the past and we're not currently in the future, the most science can do for us is help us theorize about what may have happened or what may happen. Take intelligent design theory vs. the theory of evolution; it doesn't matter how many people claim either one is fact. There's a reason why neither one has moved past the label of "theory": <em>it's not possible</em>. We will never be able to amount enough evidence that will 100%, no-room-for-debate, prove that either one or the other is true any more than I can prove to you for fact that at 2:15pm, on October 13th, I ate a hard boiled egg for lunch. I can show you leftover eggshells, water that has evidence of being boiled, and witnesses that say they saw my car at home, but those are just evidences that what I am saying is true, not actual proof. That said, any scientific mentality regarding the past or future that sets itself up as indisputable fact is bad science and is something we need to be careful with.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Personally, most of what I do ends up on the path of fixing global warming, I'm just doing it for different reasons. Of all the issues I'm keeping an eye out for, global warming isn't one that concerns me right now.</p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>George said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://community.theaquaponicsource.com/forum/topics/organic-trailblazer-except-ge?id=4778851%3ATopic%3A458141&page=5#4778851Comment525614"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>True, if you me<span>an thermometers. There <span>are m<span>any other records, some hundreds of ye<span>ars old, others hundreds of thous<span>ands, others hundreds of millions. You're <span>a young m<span>an so possibly you still h<span>ave time to rese<span>arch the subject further, <span>and</span>, <span><span>more <span><span>fascinating to me<span>, b<span>arring <span>a prem<span>ature de<span>ath, you'll be here to observe. Try to keep <span>an open mind, especi<span>ally <span>about science. <span><span><br/></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>You hit the n<span>ail on the he<span>ad when you spe<span>ak of <span>action being t<span>aken, or not t<span>aken</span>. We're so <span>afr<span>aid to think <span>about doing <span>anything different, even if it's better. I believe m<span>an will likely t<span>ake <span>action, <span>at some point. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>Climate change, a significant amount of it, is already in the pipeline, regardless of action or inaction or wh<span>at you m<span>ay believe <span>about it</span></span></span>. The first man-made global climate change is rapid, compared to the past geologic changes but it is still somewhat slow, compared to one lifetime. Stay tuned. Over <span>and out.</span></p>
<p><br/> <cite>Alex Veidel said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://community.theaquaponicsource.com/forum/topics/organic-trailblazer-except-ge?id=4778851%3ATopic%3A458141&page=4#4778851Comment525089"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>It's been a while since I've taken a good look at this stuff, but if I recall correctly, we've only been accurately keeping track of global temperatures since 1860. </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> True, if you mean thermometer…tag:aquaponicgardening.ning.com,2013-10-24:4778851:Comment:5256142013-10-24T02:04:57.369ZGeorgehttps://aquaponicgardening.ning.com/profile/Geoge
<p>True, if you me<span>an thermometers. There <span>are m<span>any other records, some hundreds of ye<span>ars old, others hundreds of thous<span>ands, others hundreds of millions. You're <span>a young m<span>an so possibly you still h<span>ave time to rese<span>arch the subject further, <span>and</span>, <span><span>more <span><span>fascinating to me<span>, b<span>arring <span>a prem<span>ature de<span>ath, you'll be here to observe. Try to keep <span>an open mind,…</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>True, if you me<span>an thermometers. There <span>are m<span>any other records, some hundreds of ye<span>ars old, others hundreds of thous<span>ands, others hundreds of millions. You're <span>a young m<span>an so possibly you still h<span>ave time to rese<span>arch the subject further, <span>and</span>, <span><span>more <span><span>fascinating to me<span>, b<span>arring <span>a prem<span>ature de<span>ath, you'll be here to observe. Try to keep <span>an open mind, especi<span>ally <span>about science. <span><span><br/></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>You hit the n<span>ail on the he<span>ad when you spe<span>ak of <span>action being t<span>aken, or not t<span>aken</span>. We're so <span>afr<span>aid to think <span>about doing <span>anything different, even if it's better. I believe m<span>an will likely t<span>ake <span>action, <span>at some point. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>Climate change, a significant amount of it, is already in the pipeline, regardless of action or inaction or wh<span>at you m<span>ay believe <span>about it</span></span></span>. The first man-made global climate change is rapid, compared to the past geologic changes but it is still somewhat slow, compared to one lifetime. Stay tuned. Over <span>and out.</span></p>
<p><br/> <cite>Alex Veidel said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://community.theaquaponicsource.com/forum/topics/organic-trailblazer-except-ge?id=4778851%3ATopic%3A458141&page=4#4778851Comment525089"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>It's been a while since I've taken a good look at this stuff, but if I recall correctly, we've only been accurately keeping track of global temperatures since 1860. </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> It's been a while since I've…tag:aquaponicgardening.ning.com,2013-10-23:4778851:Comment:5250892013-10-23T18:49:55.536ZAlex Veidelhttps://aquaponicgardening.ning.com/profile/AlexVeidel
<p>It's been a while since I've taken a good look at this stuff, but if I recall correctly, we've only been accurately keeping track of global temperatures since 1860. No matter how old you think the earth is, whether 10,000 or 1,000,000,000, that is an infinitesimal speck of data in our earth's timeline. We know the earth goes through heating <em>and</em> cooling trends; how do we know this isn't just another trend?</p>
<p>Another thing I recall (and like I said, it has been a while, so there…</p>
<p>It's been a while since I've taken a good look at this stuff, but if I recall correctly, we've only been accurately keeping track of global temperatures since 1860. No matter how old you think the earth is, whether 10,000 or 1,000,000,000, that is an infinitesimal speck of data in our earth's timeline. We know the earth goes through heating <em>and</em> cooling trends; how do we know this isn't just another trend?</p>
<p>Another thing I recall (and like I said, it has been a while, so there might have been some new data since then) is that while it seems like the scientific community at large agrees with global warming trends, there are in fact only a fraction of scientists that are knowledgeable enough in this particular area to actually make a qualified assessment. And in that group of people, there are mixed opinions about warming trends. A lot of scientist have simply jumped on the bandwagon in support, although it's not their area of expertise.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I don't really have a problem with the theory of global warming though, depending on how action is implemented. I like that it gets people thinking about mankind's unhealthy practices. Plus, the temperatures has been in the low 30's here in Illinois, and I'm cold :)</p>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>George said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://community.theaquaponicsource.com/forum/topics/organic-trailblazer-except-ge?id=4778851%3ATopic%3A458141&page=4#4778851Comment525306"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Well, cert<span>ainly this is cherry picking, when you pick the hottest ye<span>ar on record, <span>an El Nino ye<span>ar, to begin your comp<span>arisons. There <span>are other f<span>acts which could be considered, such <span>as there h<span>ave been over 400 consecutive months of glob<span>al <span>annu<span>al temper<span>atures greater th<span>an the 20th century <span>aver<span>age <span>and </span>th<span>at over ten hot records <span>are now being broken for e<span>ach cold record. The 2000s were the hottest dec<span>ade on record, <span>as w<span>as the previous dec<span>ade</span></span></span>. T</span>hese <span>are things which </span><span>wouldn't h<span>appen in <span>a non-w<span>arming world. <span><span><br/></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>Scientists conspiring in m<span>ass, worldwide, to fool the rest of us? Every scientific body in the world is lying? I don't believe so. </span></p>
<p>There <span>are m<span>any f<span>acts but they <span>are opposed by <span>a well-funded distortion <span>campaign. The truth is not th<span>at difficult to determine, for those who wish to do so. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>No m<span>atter how much we w<span>ant clim<span>ate ch<span>ange not to be true, th<span>at doesn't ch<span>ange the b<span>asic physics of this issue <span>and the science h<span>as been well understood for <span>a long time.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>The g<span>asses which tr<span>ap he<span>at in our <span>atmosphere, en<span>abling life to exist on pl<span>anet e<span>arth, <span>are incre<span>asing. This is precisely me<span>asured, m<span>any times per d<span>ay in m<span>any pl<span>aces</span></span></span></span> <span>and it's just a f<span>act. If someone c<span>an m<span>ake <span>a scientific c<span>ase th<span>at this will not c<span>ause the e<span>arth to ret<span>ain more he<span>at in our pl<span>ane<span>t<span>ary system, <span>atmosphere, oce<span>ans <span>and e<span>arth, they h<span>aven't done so yet.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br/>Conversely, the d<span>at<span>a shows th<span>at <span>air</span> temper<span>atures <span>and oce<span>an temper<span>atures <span>are, in f<span>act, incre<span>asing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>There <span>are m<span>any blowh<span>ards <span>around, such <span>as I, <span>and it m<span>akes us we<span>ary to listen. Th<span>at's ex<span>actly wh<span>at some people, some industries, w<span>ant. There <span>are two other things I'll s<span>ay:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Reg<span>ardless of wh<span>at the truth is <span>and whether we believe it, wh<span>at we believe doesn't ch<span>ange the truth.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>(2) The E<span>arth <span>also spe<span>aks</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><br/><span class="text_exposed_show"><br/></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Well, certainly this is cherr…tag:aquaponicgardening.ning.com,2013-10-23:4778851:Comment:5253062013-10-23T09:32:57.136ZGeorgehttps://aquaponicgardening.ning.com/profile/Geoge
<p>Well, cert<span>ainly this is cherry picking, when you pick the hottest ye<span>ar on record, <span>an El Nino ye<span>ar, to begin your comp<span>arisons. There <span>are other f<span>acts which could be considered, such <span>as there h<span>ave been over 400 consecutive months of glob<span>al <span>annu<span>al temper<span>atures greater th<span>an the 20th century <span>aver<span>age <span>and </span>th<span>at over ten hot records <span>are now being broken for e<span>ach cold record.…</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>Well, cert<span>ainly this is cherry picking, when you pick the hottest ye<span>ar on record, <span>an El Nino ye<span>ar, to begin your comp<span>arisons. There <span>are other f<span>acts which could be considered, such <span>as there h<span>ave been over 400 consecutive months of glob<span>al <span>annu<span>al temper<span>atures greater th<span>an the 20th century <span>aver<span>age <span>and </span>th<span>at over ten hot records <span>are now being broken for e<span>ach cold record. The 2000s were the hottest dec<span>ade on record, <span>as w<span>as the previous dec<span>ade</span></span></span>. T</span>hese <span>are things which </span><span>wouldn't h<span>appen in <span>a non-w<span>arming world. <span><span><br/></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>Scientists conspiring in m<span>ass, worldwide, to fool the rest of us? Every scientific body in the world is lying? I don't believe so. </span></p>
<p>There <span>are m<span>any f<span>acts but they <span>are opposed by <span>a well-funded distortion <span>campaign. The truth is not th<span>at difficult to determine, for those who wish to do so. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>No m<span>atter how much we w<span>ant clim<span>ate ch<span>ange not to be true, th<span>at doesn't ch<span>ange the b<span>asic physics of this issue <span>and the science h<span>as been well understood for <span>a long time.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p>The g<span>asses which tr<span>ap he<span>at in our <span>atmosphere, en<span>abling life to exist on pl<span>anet e<span>arth, <span>are incre<span>asing. This is precisely me<span>asured, m<span>any times per d<span>ay in m<span>any pl<span>aces</span></span></span></span> <span>and it's just a f<span>act. If someone c<span>an m<span>ake <span>a scientific c<span>ase th<span>at this will not c<span>ause the e<span>arth to ret<span>ain more he<span>at in our pl<span>ane<span>t<span>ary system, <span>atmosphere, oce<span>ans <span>and e<span>arth, they h<span>aven't done so yet.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br/>Conversely, the d<span>at<span>a shows th<span>at <span>air</span> temper<span>atures <span>and oce<span>an temper<span>atures <span>are, in f<span>act, incre<span>asing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>There <span>are m<span>any blowh<span>ards <span>around, such <span>as I, <span>and it m<span>akes us we<span>ary to listen. Th<span>at's ex<span>actly wh<span>at some people, some industries, w<span>ant. There <span>are two other things I'll s<span>ay:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Reg<span>ardless of wh<span>at the truth is <span>and whether we believe it, wh<span>at we believe doesn't ch<span>ange the truth.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>(2) The E<span>arth <span>also spe<span>aks</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p><br/> <cite>Bob Terrell said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://community.theaquaponicsource.com/forum/topics/organic-trailblazer-except-ge?id=4778851%3ATopic%3A458141&page=4#4778851Comment477634"><div class="xg_user_generated"><div class="actorDescription actorName"><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.facebook.com/cfact?ref=stream&hc_location=stream">CFACT</a></div>
<div><div id="id_519adcef2c7693129133464" class="text_exposed_root text_exposed">There has been no global warming since the nineties -- according to all the major temperature data sets.<br/> <br/> When most in the media refused to report, CFACT graphed it and put it on a billboard at the entrance to D.C. <br/> <br/> Warming campaigners immediately went into denial and accused CFACT of "lying," "cherry picking" and "ignoring science." Yet the evidence is so overwhelming, that even the BBC, which has steadfastly toed the warming line, is forced to concede. <br/> <span class="text_exposed_show"><br/><br/></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Read this article today and t…tag:aquaponicgardening.ning.com,2013-10-22:4778851:Comment:5249792013-10-22T15:13:46.108ZAlex Veidelhttps://aquaponicgardening.ning.com/profile/AlexVeidel
<p>Read this article today and thought back to this discussion. I think it adds some good after-dinner-mint-like food for thought:</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.patternliteracy.com/203-is-sustainable-agriculture-an-oxymoron" target="_blank">http://www.patternliteracy.com/203-is-sustainable-agriculture-an-oxymoron</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>What are your thoughts?</p>
<p>Read this article today and thought back to this discussion. I think it adds some good after-dinner-mint-like food for thought:</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://www.patternliteracy.com/203-is-sustainable-agriculture-an-oxymoron" target="_blank">http://www.patternliteracy.com/203-is-sustainable-agriculture-an-oxymoron</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>What are your thoughts?</p> Here is a link that has a bit…tag:aquaponicgardening.ning.com,2013-06-06:4778851:Comment:4832172013-06-06T05:51:58.180ZJon Nosehttps://aquaponicgardening.ning.com/profile/JonNose
<p>Here is a link that has a bit more info</p>
<p><a href="http://iceagenow.info/" target="_blank">http://iceagenow.info/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://iceagenow.com/" target="_blank">http://iceagenow.com/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCohucT7FmQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCohucT7FmQ</a></p>
<p>Here is a link that has a bit more info</p>
<p><a href="http://iceagenow.info/" target="_blank">http://iceagenow.info/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://iceagenow.com/" target="_blank">http://iceagenow.com/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCohucT7FmQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCohucT7FmQ</a></p> I just realized I keep using…tag:aquaponicgardening.ning.com,2013-06-05:4778851:Comment:4831202013-06-05T20:24:32.517ZAlex Veidelhttps://aquaponicgardening.ning.com/profile/AlexVeidel
<p>I just realized I keep using the term global warming. By "global warming" I'm referring to the notion that human trends in increasing pollution are causing the earth's temperature to increase on a global scale, not simply whether the earth is getting warmer or not. And yes, I keep resurfacing this thread because I'm STILL thinking about it. Can you spell o-b-s-e-s-s-i-v-e - c-o-m-p-u-l-s-i-v-e???</p>
<p>I just realized I keep using the term global warming. By "global warming" I'm referring to the notion that human trends in increasing pollution are causing the earth's temperature to increase on a global scale, not simply whether the earth is getting warmer or not. And yes, I keep resurfacing this thread because I'm STILL thinking about it. Can you spell o-b-s-e-s-s-i-v-e - c-o-m-p-u-l-s-i-v-e???</p> CFACT
There has been no globa…tag:aquaponicgardening.ning.com,2013-05-21:4778851:Comment:4776342013-05-21T02:37:48.837ZBob Terrellhttps://aquaponicgardening.ning.com/profile/BobTerrell
<div class="actorDescription actorName"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/cfact?ref=stream&hc_location=stream">CFACT</a></div>
<div><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_519adcef2c7693129133464">There has been no global warming since the nineties -- according to all the major temperature data sets.<br></br> <br></br> When most in the media refused to report, CFACT graphed it and put it on a billboard at the entrance to D.C. <br></br> <br></br> Warming campaigners immediately went into denial…</div>
</div>
<div class="actorDescription actorName"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/cfact?ref=stream&hc_location=stream">CFACT</a></div>
<div><div id="id_519adcef2c7693129133464" class="text_exposed_root text_exposed">There has been no global warming since the nineties -- according to all the major temperature data sets.<br/> <br/> When most in the media refused to report, CFACT graphed it and put it on a billboard at the entrance to D.C. <br/> <br/> Warming campaigners immediately went into denial and accused CFACT of "lying," "cherry picking" and "ignoring science." Yet the evidence is so overwhelming, that even the BBC, which has steadfastly toed the warming line, is forced to concede. <br/> <span class="text_exposed_show"><br/> The BBC is not ready to give up on the global warming campaign just yet, but their welcome admission shows progress and is worth sharing!<br/> <br/> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023" target="_blank" rel="nofollow nofollow"><span>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/</span>science-environment-22567023</a></span></div>
</div>
<p><br/> <br/> <cite>Alex Veidel said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://community.theaquaponicsource.com/forum/topics/organic-trailblazer-except-ge?xg_source=activity&id=4778851%3ATopic%3A458141&page=4#4778851Comment477722"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>So Bob, I was thinking, how do we know that this whole "earth can't support the growing population" idea is based on feasible and reliable information? I mean, the same thing happened with global warming, it got plenty of people in a panic (heck, our former vice-president did a documentary on it), and we all know what a farce that turned out to be. I heard someone once say that "Green is the new Red". In context of the conversation, they were pointing out that the government was using the concept of global warming to impose new taxes and regulations on the populace and gain further control. (and I'll point out that even though the whole idea is built on sketchy information, those laws are still being enforced. We're still subject to carbon emissions testing out here to be able to drive vehicles. And they outlawed albuterol inhalers because of their "negative effect" on the environment ['cause we all know how those crazy asthmatics just love to take those canisters and just empty one after another into the atmosphere. On second thought, maybe that was just their attempt at population control<img src="http://www.bkserv.net/images/Smile.gif"/> ] And those are just a couple examples) So, how do we know that this isn't something that is just being encouraged so that the government can take further control of a panicking populace? I could see how the government would love to step in and have say in how many children one is allowed to have or who can live and who must be left to die "for the good of the country". And I've kind of developed a mistrust of "modern science", I don't usually just take the word of a guy just 'cause he's in a lab coat. (Not at all saying that anyone here does)</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Alex, I agree with your point…tag:aquaponicgardening.ning.com,2013-05-21:4778851:Comment:4777312013-05-21T02:32:18.536ZBob Terrellhttps://aquaponicgardening.ning.com/profile/BobTerrell
<p>Alex, I agree with your points of control over populace, have you ever been to Bejing, China, Belize City, Belize, Kenya, Guatamala, El Salvador, ? I have. I have seen what overpopulation has done. Stop to think for just a min on how many people would be on the Earth today that we would be trying to feed and house if we had not had World War I or WW II?</p>
<p>The spanish flu took out 18 million, the Black death took a full half of the world population at that time. I know that we or at…</p>
<p>Alex, I agree with your points of control over populace, have you ever been to Bejing, China, Belize City, Belize, Kenya, Guatamala, El Salvador, ? I have. I have seen what overpopulation has done. Stop to think for just a min on how many people would be on the Earth today that we would be trying to feed and house if we had not had World War I or WW II?</p>
<p>The spanish flu took out 18 million, the Black death took a full half of the world population at that time. I know that we or at least most of us live in areas where we have space and get the food that we want on any given day. A lot of the world cannot because there is just not enough food for the Earths population and we just keep on popping out little ones. Everyone says jobs is the real need but you cannot eat a Ford, or a sky scraper, and yes, not everyone knows how to grow food, what a shame.<br/> <br/> <cite>Alex Veidel said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://community.theaquaponicsource.com/forum/topics/organic-trailblazer-except-ge?commentId=4778851%3AComment%3A477722&xg_source=msg_com_forum#4778851Comment477722"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>So Bob, I was thinking, how do we know that this whole "earth can't support the growing population" idea is based on feasible and reliable information? I mean, the same thing happened with global warming, it got plenty of people in a panic (heck, our former vice-president did a documentary on it), and we all know what a farce that turned out to be. I heard someone once say that "Green is the new Red". In context of the conversation, they were pointing out that the government was using the concept of global warming to impose new taxes and regulations on the populace and gain further control. (and I'll point out that even though the whole idea is built on sketchy information, those laws are still being enforced. We're still subject to carbon emissions testing out here to be able to drive vehicles. And they outlawed albuterol inhalers because of their "negative effect" on the environment ['cause we all know how those crazy asthmatics just love to take those canisters and just empty one after another into the atmosphere. On second thought, maybe that was just their attempt at population control<img src="http://www.bkserv.net/images/Smile.gif"/> ] And those are just a couple examples) So, how do we know that this isn't something that is just being encouraged so that the government can take further control of a panicking populace? I could see how the government would love to step in and have say in how many children one is allowed to have or who can live and who must be left to die "for the good of the country". And I've kind of developed a mistrust of "modern science", I don't usually just take the word of a guy just 'cause he's in a lab coat. (Not at all saying that anyone here does)</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> So Bob, I was thinking, how d…tag:aquaponicgardening.ning.com,2013-05-21:4778851:Comment:4777222013-05-21T01:50:51.709ZAlex Veidelhttps://aquaponicgardening.ning.com/profile/AlexVeidel
<p>So Bob, I was thinking, how do we know that this whole "earth can't support the growing population" idea is based on feasible and reliable information? I mean, the same thing happened with global warming, it got plenty of people in a panic (heck, our former vice-president did a documentary on it), and we all know what a farce that turned out to be. I heard someone once say that "Green is the new Red". In context of the conversation, they were pointing out that the government was using the…</p>
<p>So Bob, I was thinking, how do we know that this whole "earth can't support the growing population" idea is based on feasible and reliable information? I mean, the same thing happened with global warming, it got plenty of people in a panic (heck, our former vice-president did a documentary on it), and we all know what a farce that turned out to be. I heard someone once say that "Green is the new Red". In context of the conversation, they were pointing out that the government was using the concept of global warming to impose new taxes and regulations on the populace and gain further control. (and I'll point out that even though the whole idea is built on sketchy information, those laws are still being enforced. We're still subject to carbon emissions testing out here to be able to drive vehicles. And they outlawed albuterol inhalers because of their "negative effect" on the environment ['cause we all know how those crazy asthmatics just love to take those canisters and just empty one after another into the atmosphere. On second thought, maybe that was just their attempt at population control :) ] And those are just a couple examples) So, how do we know that this isn't something that is just being encouraged so that the government can take further control of a panicking populace? I could see how the government would love to step in and have say in how many children one is allowed to have or who can live and who must be left to die "for the good of the country". And I've kind of developed a mistrust of "modern science", I don't usually just take the word of a guy just 'cause he's in a lab coat. (Not at all saying that anyone here does)</p>