"Earth Day"- Draggin' Us Down!

[Trajan]

Hey PC, people like you spouting putrid Ayn Rand philosophy don't belong in America.

 

[The T]

Charlton Heston reading the Intro to Michael Chricton's "State Of Fear"

HESTON: You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval.

Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again.

The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.

When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try.

We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Charlton Heston reading the Intro to Michael Chricton's "State Of Fear"

HESTON: You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval.

Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again.

The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.

When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try.

We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us."

So glad you posted this!

"You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity."

Our friends on the Left haven't studied the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution, and don't realize that their environmentalism is one of the off-shoots of displacing religion with what they consider reason....

...and a sense that man created himself and can do the opposite.

What conceit.

 

[The T]

Charlton Heston reading the Intro to Michael Chricton's "State Of Fear"

HESTON: You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval.

Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again.

The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.

When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try.

We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us."

So glad you posted this!

"You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity."

Our friends on the Left haven't studied the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution, and don't realize that their environmentalism is one of the off-shoots of displacing religion with what they consider reason....

...and a sense that man created himself and can do the opposite.

What conceit.

Shame people buy into the skewing the lines between pollution and AGW and have you noticed human economics is always involved? Too many have fallen into the trap set before them by those that purposely mislead to control their behaviour.

Vanity indeed.

 

[sparky]

I'd really like to now when , or how enviromentalists

the most conservative people on earth

somehow became leftists?


I take it there's very few hunters here......

 

[The T]

I'd really like to now when , or how enviromentalists

the most conservative people on earth

somehow became leftists?


I take it there's very few hunters here......

You mean the same conservatives that skew the truth so that they control human behaviour?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'd really like to now when , or how enviromentalists

the most conservative people on earth

somehow became leftists?


I take it there's very few hunters here......

This is very simple, even for a robot....

those who view governmental force and coersion as the mechanism for the consummation of their social goals are totalitarians, Leftist, envirnmentalists, liberals, progressives, etc.

You might recall political systems from a previous century who invested in the same mechanism, you've heard of communists and national socialists?
Good.


Dennis Prager defines liberalism as follows:
Good Intentions plus coercion equals solution.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'll never stop becoming amazed at how blind, fearful and uncurious Conservatives are. Never.

Any rationalization to ignore environmental damage can make perfect sense to them. Lenin's birthday? New environmental 'religion'? Straws grasped at to justify further ruin of the environment.

Why? Because nothing appeals to Conservatives more than money. They know that pollution ruins the environment, but they're more concerned about the cost of the cleanup than they are about the effects of not cleaning up.

It boils down to this: what's more important, the ability to profit with no consequence or the future?

Short-sighted paranoid and largely scientifically ignorant Conservatives will always opt for what they perceive as their "right" to pollute over their offspring's absolute right to breathe clean air, drink clean water and farm in clean soil.

 

[The T]

Translation: "Conservatives wish bad water bad air and provide bad stewardship all for making a buck..."

That about cover it?

You are truly wrong there sport. NO ONE wishes these things unless they're truly stupid.

And thanks for highlighting my point of skewing the lines. Nice job.

 

[Nosmo King]

Translation: "Conservatives wish bad water bad air and provide bad stewardship all for making a buck..."

That about cover it?

You are truly wrong there sport. NO ONE wishes these things unless they're truly stupid.

And thanks for highlighting my point of skewing the lines. Nice job.

Lead, follow or get out of the way, right? That's not applicable to the Conservative notion of environmental protection. Otherwise, why all the lies, obfuscation and deceit about the environmental movement?

From where I sit, Conservatives would rather make a buck than protect the planet. Hell. Conservatives would rather make a buck than protect human rights too! Property rights arer more important than anything else to Conservatives. Certainly human rights don't matter. Environmental protection means a restriction on property rights to Conservatives and they would never continence that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll never stop becoming amazed at how blind, fearful and uncurious Conservatives are. Never.

Any rationalization to ignore environmental damage can make perfect sense to them. Lenin's birthday? New environmental 'religion'? Straws grasped at to justify further ruin of the environment.

Why? Because nothing appeals to Conservatives more than money. They know that pollution ruins the environment, but they're more concerned about the cost of the cleanup than they are about the effects of not cleaning up.

It boils down to this: what's more important, the ability to profit with no consequence or the future?

Short-sighted paranoid and largely scientifically ignorant Conservatives will always opt for what they perceive as their "right" to pollute over their offspring's absolute right to breathe clean air, drink clean water and farm in clean soil.

You are, of course, entitled to your nonsense, but I'm heartened to note that Gallup has memorialized the fact that you folks are a dying breed.

Most sentient adults have caught on to the fallacious and exiguous nature of your thinking.

 

[RollingThunder]

Hard to believe, but this nonsense is ‘celebrating’ its 41st birthday. Those of us with any sense[LOL] have largely ignored it because we mistakenly believed that only children would take it seriously…we didn’t believe that any sentient adult would!

[stupidly insane drivel]

Earth Day, May Day....environmentalism, totalitarianim...[LOL]

Neither belongs in a liberty-loving America!

I'm just a little curious, chicie. Are you insane or just really retarded? Or both? Your posts make it obvious that there just aren't any other choices.

I'm sure the rest of the gang in the little boys room are slapping their knees.....

But, among adults...did you think that this would pass as a clever post?

I guess your motto is "Desperate to be relevant."
Try again.

I'm sure you imagine that your ridiculously stupid, partisan, anti-environment, anti-science nonsense is somehow "relevant" to something, somewhere, but anybody with an IQ above room temperature can clearly see how utterly crazy your pathetic, erroneous rants are. You've made it plain that you are not only very retarded but also quite insane in that charmingly half-witted rightwingnut way.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You must believe in the coming of Jesus. Only those people and a large section of extremely low educated people think that we can live with an infinite attitude in a finite world.


Your "among adults" vs. children comment is appalling at best. I will surely apologize for this post the day Jesus rides a dinosaur down to save his followers.

 

[uscitizen]

You talk about clueless???

President Obama is out there on the campaign trail today talking about "alternative energy" Should anything surprise us anymore in terms of what comes out of this guys mouth??

Here we have zero corn production going on due to drought and this guy is talking ethanol.

I paid $4.45 a gallon today..........to fill up my tank was over $50. Think this asshole would consider being a leader and talking about a Manhattan like project on drilling? Would have immediate surge of lower prices on oil..........overnight. But it wont happpen.........the fcukking k00ks would go ballistic!!!


Earth Day!!! Laugh my balls off.............if Earth Day is on top of your concern list on this day, you need beer and a plan.

The largest wind farms in the world are in China, the largest solar fields in the world are also in China, and the worlds largest hydroelectric dams are in China as well. The chineese are expanding their renewable energy sources every chance they get. Why do you suppose that is?

Cause they are smarter than we are?

 

[Old Rocks]

Translation: "Conservatives wish bad water bad air and provide bad stewardship all for making a buck..."

That about cover it?

You are truly wrong there sport. NO ONE wishes these things unless they're truly stupid.

And thanks for highlighting my point of skewing the lines. Nice job.

Yes, that does cover it, dumb ass.

Enviro groups rally against words of Joe Barton, again | Trail Blazers Blog | dallasnews.com

Environmental groups are once again rallying their troops with the words of Rep. Joe Barton.

Like many other Republicans in Congress, Barton wants to nullify new Environmental Protection Agency regulations. One rule at the top of his hit list: a new limit on mercury and other toxic pollutants emitted by boilers, power plants and cement kilns.

Environmental groups are e-mailing supporters with Barton's remarks from a recent hearing that focused on the costs to industry of that rule. The EPA analysis said the power-plant rule could avoid as many as 17,000 premature deaths.

Barton questioned the EPA's analysis and suggested there is no "medical negative" to such emissions. He asked why the EPA would further limit mercury emissions when "the average 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant produced three pounds of mercury a year":

"You're not going to get enough mercury exposure or SO2 exposure or even particulate matter exposure," Barton told a witness testifying for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "I think the EPA numbers are pulled out of the thin air. And I'm going to ask that we send an official document to the EPA -- let's back them up.
(The NRDC witness, John Walke, told Barton that it was particulate matter, not mercury, that causes premature deaths.)

The League of Conservation Voters, which gives Barton a 10% score for his votes on environmental issues, told supporters in an email:

The scale and scope of these pro-polluter attacks is at times breath-taking. For example, at a Congressional hearing just a few days ago, Rep. Joe Barton claimed that there was "no medical negative" from mercury, sulfur dioxide or other toxic air pollutants

You Consevatives are all about you, right now, and damn tomorrow. You don't give a damn about your own children, or those of anybody else. You are the Hickman's of social policy. Ayn Rand wouldn't love you, however. You are among the lice.

 

[skookerasbil]

Indeed........we might be the lice but............

I choose being part of the lice population.............

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Nosmo King]

I ask only two things of people like PoliChick and T. Would you please cite the strong, reliable, scientifically precise yet productive pieces of legislation offered up by a Conservative group in either house of Congress in favor of environmental protection? Where's the sterling Conservative legislative record on environmental issues?

Since it doesn't exist, why haven't either of you considered a real estate purchase in Love Canal, NY? Or Times Beach, MO? Could you feel confident bathing, cooking and drinking in the water at Imperial, PA?

You know pollution exists. It poisons and destroys the air, water and soil. You know it comes from industrial and agricultural activities. Yet you want to let it run rampant. Regulated not by law but by company overtsite personnel. It costs money to use government inspectors. Taxpayer money. Do you think it's an American right to pollute? That to regulate emissions is a hindrance to industry and the money to be made?

You bend over backward to dismiss and belittle any action taken by any citizen to protect the environment. You actually believe that mankind cannot harm the environment, in spite of watching the horror in Japan the last month. In spite of Love Canal, NY and Times Beach, MO and Imperial, PA.

With all we've seen, from rivers in Cleveland to the harbor in Boston, how remediation and regulation have helped turn bad situations around. And you would roll back the mechanisms that made those places better.

I honestly can't accept your point of view. I have seen first hand how regulations on emissions changes the works. I have been a field Environmental Engineer. I've cleaned up former steel mill sites so real estate development, even residential units, can be safely built. I have sampled and assessed soils and building materials containing hazardous materials. I have helped a city you have heard of make its drinking water safely potable after being contaminated by naphthalene.

The environmental movement has made a significant change in the state of our planet today. To deny this is to deny scientifically verifiable facts. Yours is a political position against a sane, verifiable, responsible public health and safety position. I'm afraid the paranoia, obfuscations and lies about environmentalists and our concerns is over the top at best, dangerously, irresponsibly silly at worst.

 

[westwall]

I ask only two things of people like PoliChick and T. Would you please cite the strong, reliable, scientifically precise yet productive pieces of legislation offered up by a Conservative group in either house of Congress in favor of environmental protection? Where's the sterling Conservative legislative record on environmental issues?

Since it doesn't exist, why haven't either of you considered a real estate purchase in Love Canal, NY? Or Times Beach, MO? Could you feel confident bathing, cooking and drinking in the water at Imperial, PA?

You know pollution exists. It poisons and destroys the air, water and soil. You know it comes from industrial and agricultural activities. Yet you want to let it run rampant. Regulated not by law but by company overtsite personnel. It costs money to use government inspectors. Taxpayer money. Do you think it's an American right to pollute? That to regulate emissions is a hindrance to industry and the money to be made?

You bend over backward to dismiss and belittle any action taken by any citizen to protect the environment. You actually believe that mankind cannot harm the environment, in spite of watching the horror in Japan the last month. In spite of Love Canal, NY and Times Beach, MO and Imperial, PA.

With all we've seen, from rivers in Cleveland to the harbor in Boston, how remediation and regulation have helped turn bad situations around. And you would roll back the mechanisms that made those places better.

I honestly can't accept your point of view. I have seen first hand how regulations on emissions changes the works. I have been a field Environmental Engineer. I've cleaned up former steel mill sites so real estate development, even residential units, can be safely built. I have sampled and assessed soils and building materials containing hazardous materials. I have helped a city you have heard of make its drinking water safely potable after being contaminated by naphthalene.

The environmental movement has made a significant change in the state of our planet today. To deny this is to deny scientifically verifiable facts. Yours is a political position against a sane, verifiable, responsible public health and safety position. I'm afraid the paranoia, obfuscations and lies about environmentalists and our concerns is over the top at best, dangerously, irresponsibly silly at worst.

I believe it was President Richard Nixon that suggested the EPA, no? Last time I checked he was a Republican.

Guess you were wrong about that one eh?

 

[skookerasbil]

I ask only two things of people like PoliChick and T. Would you please cite the strong, reliable, scientifically precise yet productive pieces of legislation offered up by a Conservative group in either house of Congress in favor of environmental protection? Where's the sterling Conservative legislative record on environmental issues?

Since it doesn't exist, why haven't either of you considered a real estate purchase in Love Canal, NY? Or Times Beach, MO? Could you feel confident bathing, cooking and drinking in the water at Imperial, PA?

You know pollution exists. It poisons and destroys the air, water and soil. You know it comes from industrial and agricultural activities. Yet you want to let it run rampant. Regulated not by law but by company overtsite personnel. It costs money to use government inspectors. Taxpayer money. Do you think it's an American right to pollute? That to regulate emissions is a hindrance to industry and the money to be made?

You bend over backward to dismiss and belittle any action taken by any citizen to protect the environment. You actually believe that mankind cannot harm the environment, in spite of watching the horror in Japan the last month. In spite of Love Canal, NY and Times Beach, MO and Imperial, PA.

With all we've seen, from rivers in Cleveland to the harbor in Boston, how remediation and regulation have helped turn bad situations around. And you would roll back the mechanisms that made those places better.

I honestly can't accept your point of view. I have seen first hand how regulations on emissions changes the works. I have been a field Environmental Engineer. I've cleaned up former steel mill sites so real estate development, even residential units, can be safely built. I have sampled and assessed soils and building materials containing hazardous materials. I have helped a city you have heard of make its drinking water safely potable after being contaminated by naphthalene.

The environmental movement has made a significant change in the state of our planet today. To deny this is to deny scientifically verifiable facts. Yours is a political position against a sane, verifiable, responsible public health and safety position. I'm afraid the paranoia, obfuscations and lies about environmentalists and our concerns is over the top at best, dangerously, irresponsibly silly at worst.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD

I love these types.............and always wonder how the fcukk somebody ends up so hysterical over the reality of living in an industrialized world. Indeed the environmental community has made significant changes........in terms of pollution.......going back about 40 years or so. And most people signed up to the cause. But like all far left people, nothing is ever good enough..........as if you can regulate out ALL pollution AND as if there are no necessary tradeoffs. For example.........these assholes want to get rid of coal, as if the 2.3 million people then out of a job should just go flip hamburgers for peanuts. To these environmental people, the sentiment is, "FCUKK YOU" the people working in coal mines. 2.3 million people s0ns..........tradeoff for about 600,000 jobs and dollar to a thousand stale donuts most of those jobs will be spoken for. But that shit doesnt matter to the k00ks in their zeal for fixing" everything they think needs to be fixed AT ANY COST.

Also.......what many, many "environmentalists" fail to realize is that all the concepts they push is Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig business. They dont know that.........they think its all about people just being concerned with their environment. The movement was brilliant and of course, very methodical. They figured out long ago that it would lead to sprawling government control and HUGE compliance revenues coming into the coffers.............money to take and spread the wealth. Indeed.........business pays 1.4 trillion into the government every year due to regulatory compliance = alot of moolah!!! Smart as shit............but the kooks think environmentalism is all about being nice to the environment. These people are suckers..............

Then theres places like China............like they are going to legitimately comply.........stinkin' up the world at epic rates. But oh.......I get it.........we here in the US should make our hard working people suffer so we can feel better about ourselves.

Make no mistake..........there is a profound level of naive among the people who are hyper-environmentalists.



Thankfully...........their numbers will be firmly in the minority as this poll clearly shows = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/april_2011/27_call_americans_selfish_for_putting_economy_ahead_of_global_warming


As a country......we've done enormous good for the environment............but that doesnt mean we should be willing to get on all fours, point our asses in the air and take a telphone pole in the pooper for these troubled few..