Saudia Arabia Plan to Build Wall

Post-9/11 Era Forum

According to Nawaf Obaid, head of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project, Saudia Arabia is planning to build 560- mile fence along the Iraq border because of fears violence in Iraq will spread.

The fence to costs about $500 mil and take 5 to six years . It is expected to begin sometime this year.

China has wall, Israel has wall, America plans to build fence between Mexico, UAE is buildind wall along border with Oman and now Saudia Arabia.

i think a great wall of america on the mexico boarder sounds good.

Its a bad sign when countries build walls on their borders, as Israel, the US, and now Saudi Arabia are doing, but something I feel is only going to increase in other countries in the future.

Global warming is going to cause mass migration like we've never seen before and we have two choices - let people move or pull up the draw bridge and just say to those less fortunate "outside" - tough.

This evening's British news: some congress hearing going on in the US right now about someone in the Bush admin who's being accussed of distorting and suppressing scientific evidence on climate change to inject some doubt into the debate.

Who's even surprised??

A scientifically proven fact does not require the shrill intolerance to criticism that we see coming from the manmade global warming bandwagon. If they have proven their case, it should not make any difference what Bush or any other skeptics think.

What about the hurricane climatologists who stand out for their refusal to jump onto the MMGW bandwagon? They claim that they are being pressured to jump on-board.

Most believers base their evidence on TV news lecturing us while showing video of melting ice.

The reason most of the world has jumped onto Kyoto is that they will be recipients in the redistribution. What's not to like for them?

China will be a big-time winner. I am not sure as to what extent China will be on the receiving end of Kyoto, but they are exempted from the paying end. If nothing else, Kyoto will give them a huge competitive advantage over manufacturing countries that will not be exempted from Kyoto. Of course they would love the agreement. Small countries that do not have large manufacturing bases will also be huge beneficiaries. And lastly, so will the scientific community be huge beneficiaries. That alone should be enough to cast serious doubt on the objectivity of their scientific “consensus” about MMGW.

I hear this all the time: Let’s see the skeptics present their evidence that the MMGW theory is wrong. However, it is not incumbent upon the MMGW skeptics to prove the theory wrong. The burden of proof is on the proponents of the theory, and they have not met that burden.

Proving a scientific theory requires more than just the proponent scientists agreeing with each other and then declaring the debate to be over. Questioning scientific conclusions is part of the process of establishing the proof. Doubters are free to raise all the questions they want about the theory. It is not science if there is not the freedom to doubt its conclusions.

Yet, in the case of MMGW theory, if I question the science, I am told that I have my head in the sand. If Bush questions the science, he is accused of covering up the truth. Doubters are labeled as “deniers” in order to invoke the stigma of Holocaust Denier. There has been a call to withhold the A.M.A. Seal from meteorologists who doubt the theory. There have been calls for Nuremburg style trials for global warming deniers. The petty intolerance to criticism exhibited by the proponents of the theory of MMGW is starting to betray their own dishonesty in reaching their self-serving consensus.

Another thing I hear all the time is the need to take action just in case the theory is true. Even if it does not come true within out lifetimes, we are told that we have to worry about the fate of our children. What about the unnecessary burden that the remedy will have placed on our children if MMGW is ultimately disproved?

You are correct to observe that the vast majority of citizens are eagerly jumping on the MMGW bandwagon. I doubt they would be so eager if they knew where the bandwagon was headed once they got strapped in. Most people believe that all that will be required of them is their acceptance of the theory and the use of more efficient light bulbs. They are ready to do their part symbolically, but they have no idea of the heavy lifting that will actually be required of them once Kyoto becomes the law of the land.

With all the hype about the threat, why do we hear nothing of the cure? Kyoto would have required the U.S. to cut its energy consumption by 30% from today’s rate within ten years. Most people think they will help out by adding a little insulation to their air conditioning ducts. Actually, however, there won’t be any air conditioning under the constraints of Kyoto except for special facilities like hospitals, for instance. Tell me what you are doing to fight MMGW. Tell me how you will reduce your carbon footprint by one ton this year as the proponents have requested.

[QUOTE]EUCLID said this in post #19 :
[B]China will be a big-time winner. I am not sure as to what extent China will be on the receiving end of Kyoto, but they are exempted from the paying end. If nothing else, Kyoto will give them a huge competitive advantage over manufacturing countries that will not be exempted from Kyoto.

Actually China and India are excluded from Kyoto on a temporary basis because when the treaty was designed they were both on the list of developing countries who were exempt for economic growth reasons. Howevere in a few years China will not be exempt and as such has taken measures to reduce emissions by developing green energy sources the 3 gorges dam was one of twenty being built in China they are also investing in wind, solar and wave power although slow on the uptake India is now looking into what it can do in terms of renewables. All of that leaves the US the main polluter and I think it's pathetic that two realitvly new countries in econmic terms have done more about greenhouse emmsions in 5 years than the US has done in over 50.

That's actually a pretty good point.

-HECK!

In this swinging scientific consensus about the certainty of MMGW, there is a bit of a fracture developing over what to do about it. The mainstream preferred remedy is ONLY about consuming less. But science loves technological challenge. So a faction of science has come forth offering technological solutions to the problem of MMGW as an alternative to doing with less.

They propose solving the climate warming by shooting mirrors into space or seeding the oceans with iron. I guess the closest analogy to their recommendations would be the seeding of clouds to cause rain. They offer these ideas in good faith because, after all, they are scientists and scientists should come up with scientific solutions saving us from the misery of doing without.

They are energized by the aura that is currently being cast upon science from the politics of MMGW. So when you push MMGW hysteria, you not only get a bunch of green liberal scientists that want us all to ride bicycles, but also you get a bunch of modern scientists who want to shoot mirrors into space. The green scientists have been blind sided by these technological remedies being promoted by the modern scientists. Technological fixes fly in the face of green.