Conservatives, what pisses you off the MOST about Environmentalism?

[Nosmo King]

Tell me... what pisses you off so much about conservatives being pissed off about environmentalism?

Serious question.

I believe that Conservatives would rather make money that effects a few than act as stewards of the environment which effects everyone

 

[Nosmo King]

In an effort to understand more about your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions about your primary concerns.

Please list your primary point of offense over Emvironmentalists.

Sounds sincere. I’ll bite.

The core of environmentalism, philosophically speaking, is an anti-human one, as well as factually incorrect famine mentality. The subconscious (and plenty times conscious) thought is that humanity is a cancer on the planet, and that overpopulation is going to use up the planets resources. The conclusion here is clearly less people=more resources for me. This is objectively false, there is no “famine” of resources. Humanity is better feed and more prosperous than at any time during human history, despite the explosion in our population. It also turns out if you want to reduce emissions, you do so by making people wealthier. Which is what the west has done. There’s also a naive hint of nature being this perfect paradise that humans destroy. Mmm, no, only people who don’t understand what nature is really like think that way. Humans can hurt the environment for sure, but it doesn’t fall anywhere near the conclusion of environmentalist philosophy.

Policy wise carbon taxes do nothing to curb emissions and are just a money grab. Ways of actually reducing emissions are starring the “green” folk in the face, and they instead tell us more government and socialism is necessary. It’s absurd.

Conservatives don’t hate nature. They are just more practical, and don’t think humanity is a cancer.

What causes pollution? Humanity or nature?

 

[Nosmo King]

In an effort to understand more about your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions about your primary concerns.

Please list your primary point of offense over Emvironmentalists.

All cries of gay oppression only come from town run by democrats

Really? How do you figure?

 

[Oddball]

I believe that Conservatives would rather make money that effects a few than act as stewards of the environment which effects everyone

You're peddling a stereotype that has next to no basis in fact.

A lot of conservatives live in rural areas and control far more land do progs...That makes them first-hand stewards of the environment.

 

[progressive hunter]

Tell me... what pisses you off so much about conservatives being pissed off about environmentalism?

Serious question.

I believe that Conservatives would rather make money that effects a few than act as stewards of the environment which effects everyone

your using a big brush when you single out conservatives,,,its been my experience that its lefties that destroy more then they cure when it come to the environment,,,

 

[impuretrash]

I believe that Conservatives would rather make money that effects a few than act as stewards of the environment which effects everyone

You're peddling a stereotype that has next to no basis in fact.

A lot of conservatives live in rural areas and control far more land do progs...That makes them first-hand stewards of the environment.

The "conservative" stereotype of the cigar-chomping moneybags capitalist with a giant mustache who makes fur coats out of puppies and shuts down orphanages for fun.

 

[Jitss617]

In an effort to understand more about your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions about your primary concerns.

Please list your primary point of offense over Emvironmentalists.

All cries of gay oppression only come from town run by democrats

Really? How do you figure?

Domestic violence is high in Boston New York Chicago Baltimore California all towns run by democrats why

 

[Nosmo King]

Tell me... what pisses you off so much about conservatives being pissed off about environmentalism?

Serious question.

I believe that Conservatives would rather make money that effects a few than act as stewards of the environment which effects everyone

your using a big brush when you single out conservatives,,,its been my experience that its lefties that destroy more then they cure when it come to the environment,,,

Could you cite an example?

 

[progressive hunter]

Tell me... what pisses you off so much about conservatives being pissed off about environmentalism?

Serious question.

I believe that Conservatives would rather make money that effects a few than act as stewards of the environment which effects everyone

your using a big brush when you single out conservatives,,,its been my experience that its lefties that destroy more then they cure when it come to the environment,,,

Could you cite an example?

I already have,,,

 

[Nosmo King]

I believe that Conservatives would rather make money that effects a few than act as stewards of the environment which effects everyone

You're peddling a stereotype that has next to no basis in fact.

A lot of conservatives live in rural areas and control far more land do progs...That makes them first-hand stewards of the environment.

It seems that the primary complaint from Conservatives is environmentalism is a job killer. A shallow rebuttal to a serious subject, but it's been used so often, it has now become a stereotype.

 

[sakinago]

In an effort to understand more about your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions about your primary concerns.

Please list your primary point of offense over Emvironmentalists.

Sounds sincere. I’ll bite.

The core of environmentalism, philosophically speaking, is an anti-human one, as well as factually incorrect famine mentality. The subconscious (and plenty times conscious) thought is that humanity is a cancer on the planet, and that overpopulation is going to use up the planets resources. The conclusion here is clearly less people=more resources for me. This is objectively false, there is no “famine” of resources. Humanity is better feed and more prosperous than at any time during human history, despite the explosion in our population. It also turns out if you want to reduce emissions, you do so by making people wealthier. Which is what the west has done. There’s also a naive hint of nature being this perfect paradise that humans destroy. Mmm, no, only people who don’t understand what nature is really like think that way. Humans can hurt the environment for sure, but it doesn’t fall anywhere near the conclusion of environmentalist philosophy.

Policy wise carbon taxes do nothing to curb emissions and are just a money grab. Ways of actually reducing emissions are starring the “green” folk in the face, and they instead tell us more government and socialism is necessary. It’s absurd.

Conservatives don’t hate nature. They are just more practical, and don’t think humanity is a cancer.

What causes pollution? Humanity or nature?

We are part of nature. It’s that nature that drives us to prosper. That drives also causes us to pollute. We also fight against that nature and become extremely altruistic far beyond anything else. We’ve only been doing this science thing a few hundred years, and this conservation thing for only 100. We’re getting pretty damn good at cleaning up after ourselves. Maybe you should give humans a break. Unless you believe humans are a cancer, because we don’t just pollute. I’ll tell you one thing, the environmentalist philosophy and famine mentality has been around for a LONG time in humanity and always leads to bad things.

According to current environmentalist ideology, carbon is what pollutes. That element that’s the mainstay if organic chemistry. So life is the problem to answer your question.

 

[Nosmo King]

In an effort to understand more about your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions about your primary concerns.

Please list your primary point of offense over Emvironmentalists.

All cries of gay oppression only come from town run by democrats

Really? How do you figure?

Domestic violence is high in Boston New York Chicago Baltimore California all towns run by democrats why

Is there no domestic violence in Republican controlled municipalities? Do you think those who commit domestic violence are doing so because they are politically motivated? Do you believe that yours is a logical argument? For instance, a tiger mauled a zookeeper in Kansas last weekend. Kansas is a Red State. Why aren't tigers attacking people in Massachusetts?

 

[Nosmo King]

Tell me... what pisses you off so much about conservatives being pissed off about environmentalism?

Serious question.

I believe that Conservatives would rather make money that effects a few than act as stewards of the environment which effects everyone

your using a big brush when you single out conservatives,,,its been my experience that its lefties that destroy more then they cure when it come to the environment,,,

Could you cite an example?

I already have,,,

lefties that destroy more then they cure when it come to the environment,

Please explain.

 

[Oddball]

It seems that the primary complaint from Conservatives is environmentalism is a job killer. A shallow rebuttal to a serious subject, but it's been used so often, it has now become a stereotype.

It's a "shallow rebuttal" in your opinion.

Beside that, killing jobs isn't as bad as killing people, which is where radical environmentalism leads (i.e. eugenics).

BTW, how does any of that address the point that both Crichton and I made, viz. environmentalism being a quasi-religion?

 

[Jitss617]

In an effort to understand more about your political ideology, I'm asking a series of questions about your primary concerns.

Please list your primary point of offense over Emvironmentalists.

All cries of gay oppression only come from town run by democrats

Really? How do you figure?

Domestic violence is high in Boston New York Chicago Baltimore California all towns run by democrats why

Is there no domestic violence in Republican controlled municipalities? Do you think those who commit domestic violence are doing so because they are politically motivated? Do you believe that yours is a logical argument? For instance, a tiger mauled a zookeeper in Kansas last weekend. Kansas is a Red State. Why aren't tigers attacking people in Massachusetts?

Of course Austin Texas a town run by democrats recently had a gay rights March.. why are gays begging for respect in towns run by democrats?? We don’t have these in red towns...

 

[Nosmo King]

It seems that the primary complaint from Conservatives is environmentalism is a job killer. A shallow rebuttal to a serious subject, but it's been used so often, it has now become a stereotype.

It's a "shallow rebuttal" in your opinion.

Beside that, killing jobs isn't as bad as killing people, which is where radical environmentalism leads (i.e. eugenics).

BTW, how does any of that address the point that both Crichton and I made viz. environmentalism being a quasi-religion.

Keeping stack emissions to a safe level isn't the same as eugenics.

Eugenics has not been an issue for 100 years. Why muddy the waters with it now?

 

[progressive hunter]

Tell me... what pisses you off so much about conservatives being pissed off about environmentalism?

Serious question.

I believe that Conservatives would rather make money that effects a few than act as stewards of the environment which effects everyone

your using a big brush when you single out conservatives,,,its been my experience that its lefties that destroy more then they cure when it come to the environment,,,

Could you cite an example?

I already have,,,

lefties that destroy more then they cure when it come to the environment,

Please explain.

everything from their trashed out protests to the hypocrisy of flying thousands of miles in private jets to give a speech,,,


and at least 75% of them have never done anything but complain let alone cleaned up a park or planted a tree

 

[Mike Dwight]

Sid Meier's Civilization 2's Eco-Terrorist. He's going to eco-Bomb you with plants.Ecoterrorist (CTP1)

 

[progressive hunter]

It seems that the primary complaint from Conservatives is environmentalism is a job killer. A shallow rebuttal to a serious subject, but it's been used so often, it has now become a stereotype.

It's a "shallow rebuttal" in your opinion.

Beside that, killing jobs isn't as bad as killing people, which is where radical environmentalism leads (i.e. eugenics).

BTW, how does any of that address the point that both Crichton and I made viz. environmentalism being a quasi-religion.

Keeping stack emissions to a safe level isn't the same as eugenics.

Eugenics has not been an issue for 100 years. Why muddy the waters with it now?

sorry but true motive behind abortion is eugenics,,,just ask Margaret sanger

 

[Wyatt earp]

Putting an end to the EPA's 'secret science'


Putting an end to the EPA's 'secret science'
by Ron Arnold
| February 13, 2014 12:00 AM
Environmental Protection Agency's costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. EPA bureaucrats routinely hide this public information, insolently foreshadowing President Obama's recently outed code of ethics, “I can do anything I want.”


As Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, bluntly forced the issue, “Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims.”

“Nontransparent data and unverifiable claims”? Translated from scientese, it’s like this: If you’re a good scientist, you make an exact, detailed description of how you did your study or research so anybody else can follow your description and get the same result.

If you won’t tell anybody how you did it, your work is not “tr

If you do tell and nobody else can get the same result you got, your science is junk, or not “reproducible” – not verifiable.

Face it, EPA science is junk and they’re hiding that fac
Smith is in a position to do something about Obama's scofflaws: he's chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, where his panel this Tuesday held a hearing on “ Ensuring Open Science at EPA.”

It was the launching pad for the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, a bill to bar the EPA from proposing regulations based upon science that is not transparent or not reproducible.

That sent shockwaves through Big Green, which has a vested interest in hiding outdated, biased, falsified, sweetheart-reviewed, and even non-existent “science” that has destroyed the lives of thousands in the death-grip of agenda-driven EPA rules.

Environment Subcommittee Chairman Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., gaveled the hearing to order. “For far too long,” he said, “the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions.”

The average American would probably ask why the EPA is such a problem. The first witness told why: John D. Graham, a dean at Indiana University and former administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has years of experience telling good science from junk.

Graham surprisingly said that EPA science standards are “quite high” because lives depend upon proper rules to protect us from the harmful effects of pollution while avoiding data errors that can unjustly destroy whole sectors of America’s economy.

EPA isn’t living up to its standards. Why not?

EPA’s downfall is its poorly developed science culture, said Graham. “In my experience working with EPA, I have found that the political, legal and engineering cultures are fairly strong but the cultures of science and economics are highly variable ... First-rate scientists who are interested in public service employment might be more inclined to launch a career at the National Academy of Sciences” or elsewhere.