UN makes 50 million people disappear,then tries to hide the error.

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by vvaannmmaann, Apr 16, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. This would suggest that the UN are a bunch of con artists.

    They made this bull up so governments could make more money out of its citizens by way of tax and other covenant law changes ... in the government's favour of course!
  2. As ever with your illiterate posts you are off topic troll.
  3. Its just the usual crap the "ever so hard done by third worlders" use to scam yet more money out of the handwringing pc brigade who continue to try & placate these corrupt scroungers all the time! The sooner the west turns round & tells them to FO in a very loud voice and come back when they have redistributed all their leaders & cronies ill gotten fortunes & mastered the basic concepts of population control & efficient governance & farming, the better!!!
    • Like Like x 2
  4. The trouble with you bobthedog is that you are too pre occupied with just sitting on the fence with your thumb up your Arrse insulting other members opinions.

    Wake up and observe what is happening in the real world.
  5. Totally agreed.
  6. Being "green" is the latest excuse for the government to force more and more taxes down our throat. Strangely enough many of these new tax increases have absolutely nothing to do with being green and are just an increase in revenue for them.
  7. For the most part, they're not intended to raise revenue for specific green projects but to shape public behaviour by making certain activities arbitrarily more expensive. Raise the price of e.g. petrol and people will be less willing to waste it by leaving their engine running or driving a hundred yards to the corner shop.
  8. That may be the intent, however the consequences for those in remote rural areas is that they are further marginalised due to the cost of transportation. Also, as the pricing structure is so inflexible it ensures that those who cannot stop their engines at a whim, for example fishermen are slowly forced out of business.

    To truly see the impact of the looney green policies you have to live away from the population centres. Working in the countriside you also see just how stupid and wasteful many of the 'rules' that are brought in are.

    We dump huge volumes of usable protein (by catch or as its more commonly known black fish) is a good example. Once in the nets and brought to the surface the fish is dead, throwing it back because some scientist who has never ventured far into the fishing grounds says it should not be caught is wasteful. As for much of the science behind these rules..............
  9. I do look forward to the days when Global Warming is relegated to the same level as other 'world-ending' crises such as Acid Rain, the hole in the Ozone layer, SARS, the Millenium Bug, Bird Flu and Swine Flu. All of which we were told were goig to be catastrophically bad by interested parties only to discover that nothing happened. It's only natural for scientists to exaggerate the importance of their field but the extent which we've all been sucked in by this is pretty astonishing...
  10. Unfortunately for those who do live in remote rural areas they’re a tiny fraction of the total population and tiny fractions always lose out in policies aimed at the majority – I’m sure we can all think of exceptions to every rule. Any flexibility built in to a pricing structure would render the policy unworkable as people used the exception to get round the rule. Any regulatory scheme to prevent abuse of the exceptions would be appallingly difficult to manage and I doubt it’d be practicable.

    The science behind the rules on fishing catches is really simple enough to be common sense – ‘catch too many of this species and it’ll die out’. Hardly rocket science.

    Fisherman who choose to use indiscriminate catching methods are to blame for the waste, not ‘scientists’ or the rules. As you point out, the fish is dead once it’s in the net – it’ll remain just as dead whether it’s used or not and the species will still risk extinction whether it’s used or not. Long term viewpoints don’t always coincide with short term, but when you’re planning for a nation you need to think in longer terms than most people do about their own livelihoods.

    Now that I think about it, the fisherman example is a good one of where people don’t change their behaviour through reason or argument and so reinforce the belief that they need to be financially penalised to shape their behaviour. It’s their livelihood that’s at risk from over-fishing after all, not the scientists, yet they continue to do it so long as it’s profitable.
  11. Acid rain is still a major problem for large parts of the food-producing world and could have massive effects on global food security as agrarian nations start to industrialise; SARS and other flus are killing people with monotonous regularity and public health policies put in place as a result of the scientific warnings help keep them in check; the Ozone Layer is a great example of how a problem can be nipped in the bud when people listen to the warnings and put their own self-interest aside; the millenium bug, I'll grant you.

    I'm not personally convinced that the first two have turned out not to be problems. I suspect we've just stopped being told as inescapably that they're problems - less a problem with the science than with the media who channel our information.
  12. I survived all those and AIDS, remember that doom laden campaign?
    'Within 5 years, every family in the UK will be effected by AIDS'

    Old age will get me though.
  13. Interestingly enough I know quite a bit about the lies and double lies pushed out in regards to the fishing industry. As I have mentioned before, it is impossible to 'select' one species with any degree of accuracy, even using the best (and most expensive) methods. Fishermen have changed, knowing full well that the changes forced on them are a result of bad science. I did mention the stupidity of those who went out with one of the local skippers to sample survey an area. The areas chosen by the boffins, presumably off the map or by random selection, never had fish anywhere near them. Fish like most life forms, gather where there is food and shelter from predetation. When advised of this fact the reply was that' that was not important. What was important was that the same area be used for sampling. This lack of real knowledge translates into the belief by those carrying out the survey that stocks are disappearing.
    In reality, the local boats are having to dump cod because the waters to the West of Scotland are currently full of cod; no matter what methods are used cod still comes aboard and has to be dumped. They are even catching cod in numbers in lobster creels.

    In one respect you are right, fishing is a perfect example of where the science has been flawed. However, it has driven the regulations which in turn ensures that the very thing they are trying to protect is destroyed.
    Fishermen as a rule have no wish to destroy the potential livelyhood of their children. It must be said though, when something belongs to 'everyone' no one bothers to look after it properly. That is just how both the EU and the Uk have dealt with our fishing grounds. For a good comparison look at Iceland and Norways grounds as an example of how things could be.

    As a post script, regarding the protection of seals; with the change in legislation in Scotland driven once again by the green mindset, it is now only a matter of time before we have a major population crash due to overpopulation. Even the very large numbers of Orcas around for the last couple of years are not making much of an impact on these beasts. Why then produce more invasive legislation to protect a species that is not (as yet) in danger? Every stockholder or farmer the world over knows that if you put too many of the same species in a given area the herd weakens and suffers. Why is it only politicians and those with a 'green' mindset cannot see this? Maybe, just maybe it is a lack of practical experience managing animals.