Uh... That link about the UN is interesting. But it doesn't seem to say that the UN supports bestiality.
From the article:
"That book was a product of the Mexican government, supported by UNICEF financially as part of UNICEF's support to the Mexican government," he told the paper.
[...]
Ironside [...] noted that it carried a disclaimer that explained "the views of the writers do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations."
--
Seems like it says instead that UNICEF basically grants out money to governments that then does with it in accordance to the guidelines. i.e. more like Reagan's block grants to the states. For example, money is doled out for the purpose of family planning to governments that then use that money to fund projects that would promote family planning. It seems like the Mexican government isn't particulary, mmm, competent in that but it doesn't say the UN itself supports bestiality -- since it seems like the UN wasn't involved in it at all except for the original granting of money (before knowing what the government ended up doing with it). I'd say, probably better accountability on the part of the UN in figuring out what governments are actually doing with the money would be helpful (although perhaps impractical? It'd greatly increase the bureaucracy anyway, esp. considering how many nations it probably supports), but that's still a far cry from the UN actually supporting bestiality.
Hrm. Holding the UN accountable for money it grants out seems like it'd be similar to holding banks accountable because they lent out money to people who used the money to eventually buy, say, illegal drugs.
Edit:
About the global warming, I don't think it's necessarily the sheer amount of pollution.
However, what is different is the large scale effect humans have had on the biosphere through transforming of territory and various harmful emissions. Perhaps, it'd be better to think of it as a bucket with a small hole in the bottom. We'll assume it starts off at no water. Volcanoe eruptions raise the water in the bucket to a point below the bucket's rim. Eventually, the water drains away through the small hole in the bottom as nature works to compensate. However, if we add in more water due to human effect and reduce the bucket's height to signify nature's diminishing capacity to handle this, the water goes closer to the rim and eventually overflows (or the global temperature rises by 1 degree).
Presuming we want to stop global temperature from rising, we can either 1) reduce our own effect on the environment or 2) stop volcanoes from erupting and other natural but harmful effects on the environment. I don't know about you, but I can't do #2. ^_^ So that makes me look at option 1.
I'm sure China also has a huge effect on the global warming issue. I hear stories of coal fires that don't ever go out in some of their mines and that -cannot- be good for the environment. In addition, the amount of slash and burn agriculture in the Amazons probably has a deleterious effect on the ability of nature to compensate. However, as we're all human, we all contribute to the problem. So I'd say that while US isn't the sole cause of global warming, the US is a, probably significant due to our size and amount of output, factor in global warming.
From the article:
"That book was a product of the Mexican government, supported by UNICEF financially as part of UNICEF's support to the Mexican government," he told the paper.
[...]
Ironside [...] noted that it carried a disclaimer that explained "the views of the writers do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations."
--
Seems like it says instead that UNICEF basically grants out money to governments that then does with it in accordance to the guidelines. i.e. more like Reagan's block grants to the states. For example, money is doled out for the purpose of family planning to governments that then use that money to fund projects that would promote family planning. It seems like the Mexican government isn't particulary, mmm, competent in that but it doesn't say the UN itself supports bestiality -- since it seems like the UN wasn't involved in it at all except for the original granting of money (before knowing what the government ended up doing with it). I'd say, probably better accountability on the part of the UN in figuring out what governments are actually doing with the money would be helpful (although perhaps impractical? It'd greatly increase the bureaucracy anyway, esp. considering how many nations it probably supports), but that's still a far cry from the UN actually supporting bestiality.
Hrm. Holding the UN accountable for money it grants out seems like it'd be similar to holding banks accountable because they lent out money to people who used the money to eventually buy, say, illegal drugs.
Edit:
About the global warming, I don't think it's necessarily the sheer amount of pollution.
Quote:Well. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that volcanoes have erupted a fair amount in the past 2000 years. Since there hasn't been significant change in global temperature say before 1900, I think then that volcanoe eruptions were compensated. Or to put it another way, if they haven't effected the global temperature in the past several milennia of existence then we can conclude that they're not the cause of modern day's problems.
Volcanoes are irrelivant then... the things that spew more crap each year for each eruption then man can if man wanted to. Proof is irrelivant to you.
However, what is different is the large scale effect humans have had on the biosphere through transforming of territory and various harmful emissions. Perhaps, it'd be better to think of it as a bucket with a small hole in the bottom. We'll assume it starts off at no water. Volcanoe eruptions raise the water in the bucket to a point below the bucket's rim. Eventually, the water drains away through the small hole in the bottom as nature works to compensate. However, if we add in more water due to human effect and reduce the bucket's height to signify nature's diminishing capacity to handle this, the water goes closer to the rim and eventually overflows (or the global temperature rises by 1 degree).
Presuming we want to stop global temperature from rising, we can either 1) reduce our own effect on the environment or 2) stop volcanoes from erupting and other natural but harmful effects on the environment. I don't know about you, but I can't do #2. ^_^ So that makes me look at option 1.
I'm sure China also has a huge effect on the global warming issue. I hear stories of coal fires that don't ever go out in some of their mines and that -cannot- be good for the environment. In addition, the amount of slash and burn agriculture in the Amazons probably has a deleterious effect on the ability of nature to compensate. However, as we're all human, we all contribute to the problem. So I'd say that while US isn't the sole cause of global warming, the US is a, probably significant due to our size and amount of output, factor in global warming.