One View of Environmentalism

[westwall]

I am assuming that mankind will eventually figure out how not to be wasteful.

In other words, you're assuming you''l heed those you mock in this thread.

Enviro nazis' (and I am using that term very carefully) are the only people who seem to think that mankind will be stagnant and there will be no advancement.

Do show where they've made any such assertion

I grasp the scale quite nicely thank you. My business is in the business of cleaning up environmental disasters and I have (I would hazard a guess) far more experience of the damage that man can and has caused. The Earth has a definite carrying capacity for the amount of pollution it can process in a localised area. But, in geologic terms that is meaningless because eventually it all gets reprocessed.

In geological terms? You realize that humanity barely got here in ecological terms, right? How many species have we already driven to extinction? By the time pollution ceases to be a problem because 'it's nothing in geological terms', our species as we know it won't be around anyway.

And that's a reason to poison our water?

You would no doubt howl at the moon if man had polluted the EArth with Plutonium and yet there is naturally occuring Plutonium in South Africa. Guess what it hasn't bothered anything. And it has been there for a few million year now.

Right... so Nagasaki suffered no ill effects from acute expose to plutonium, right? Are you stupid, dishonest, or both?

In order to keep it simple for you.


No I don't heed those I mock. Mankind is getting better and better at using the planet without abusing it. As man progresses he will continue to get better or he will vanish like the rest of the failures. Survival of the fittest and all that you know.

Enviro nazis' by their very assertions make the basic assumption that man is stagnating and not going forward. In fact in many cases they want man to regress. Just look at all of the anti technology and anti energy production ideas they want passed to "protect the planet". If you can't see that connection than you are stupider than you seem to think I am. Good job.

There is no reason to poison our water and to make the implication that that is what I said is dishonest, but then that is your MO it seems. That or you're stupid and can't understand what I said. I'll let you choose which you are.

I do believe we were talking about pollution but if you want to take it to the extreme I'll play. The amount of pollution caused by the Nagasaki bomb was orders of magnitude less than the amount of pollution created by the firebombing of Tokyo. Yes it has a much longer half life but if you have studied nuclear power and its effects you would know that iodine 131 is the primary radioactive element that we must be concerned about and while it is extremly energetic (hence extremely dangerous) it's half life of 8 days renders it harmless within a few years.

The survivors of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been extensively studied (as have the Australian POW's who were within 1500 yards of the blast, all survived and other than one man who died in the 1970's of stomach cancer all lived long lives) since the war and other than a slightly higher incidence of leukemia the effects of the radiation have been negligable. Those who were exposed to high levels of radiation at the moment of the blast were quite obviously doomed but if they survived past a year they have lived a normal lifespan. There is almost no statistical difference between them and other Japanese who were not exposed.

RSH - "Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation": Dr Sohei Kondo

The long term effects of low level radiation are proving (after 6 decades of research) to be pretty benign. The assumed major health effects never manifested.

So no, I am none of the adjectives you hurled at me. What about you?

 

[westwall]

And yet the largest hole ever recorded in the ozone layer occured 30 years AFTER CFC 's were eliminated.

Did he claim CFCs were the only cause?

How long to CFCs take to break down?

What other factors effect the ozone layer?

Both of you please present your explanations.
Much of it is plastic, which is not biodegradable. How will it 'go away on its own', especially if we continue to add to it?How long will the damage last? there is still oil is Prince Edward Sound. Radiation, too goes away with time. Is Chernobyl, then not a bad thing we should avoid repeating?
Please present your evidence rebutting the claims that C0^2 has an effect on heat retention and, in turn, climate.

The polar ice cap is fluctuating within natural limits. Lighten up Francis the sky is not falling.

Could you each present your arguments regarding the ice caps?

Don't bother him with the facts.

He works for the American Petroleum Institute.

Yeah right And who do you work for? Mann?

 

[westwall]

You're assuming we suddenly cease adding to it. In other words, you're assuming we heed the environmentalists.


You don't seem to grasp scale. That a system, such as a human body, can handle certain levels of a thing, such as arsenic, does not mean it can handle an indefinite amount of acute exposure. If you don't grasp that, you're stupid. If you simply refuse to acknowledge it, then there is no point in humoring you.




Where did you ever pick up that version of things?

I am assuming that mankind will eventually figure out how not to be wasteful. In 200 years we will either be extinct or so far advanced technologically that it won't matter. Enviro nazis' (and I am using that term very carefully) are the only people who seem to think that mankind will be stagnant and there will be no advancement.

I grasp the scale quite nicely thank you. My business is in the business of cleaning up environmental disasters and I have (I would hazard a guess) far more experience of the damage that man can and has caused. The Earth has a definite carrying capacity for the amount of pollution it can process in a localised area. But, in geologic terms that is meaningless because eventually it all gets reprocessed.

We do not live in geological terms.

You would no doubt howl at the moon if man had polluted the EArth with Plutonium and yet there is naturally occuring Plutonium in South Africa. Guess what it hasn't bothered anything. And it has been there for a few million year now.

Yes, but well below the ground. Just another example of your bogus claims so ridiculous as to be a form of lying.Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And I picked up the science in science classes You might want to take a couple or three.

Well, I have taken more than a couple or three. Enough to spot phonies.

Yes and you allways acuse me of lying then never back your assertions up, though we can certainly point to many prevarications commited by you. And I'm still waiting for the name of that Japanese scientist there old fraud. If you have taken the geology classes you claim then coming up with his name should be no problem. I even gave you a 50/50 shot at it, if you just choose to guess.

I can guarantee you that even a C level student of mine would get it right (going over my records i found that they actually all did! The D students only had a 67% accuracy rate however) so don't disappoint me.

And I REALLY am disapointed that you never ever mentioned J. Tuzo Wilson. For someone to make the claims you make and then never mention him is strange to say the least....makes one wonder if you're not full of doo doo. But then my wife just thinks you're a factual posturer so I'm inclined to agree with her.

 

[JBeukema]

Mankind is getting better and better at using the planet without abusing it.

by heeding the environmentalists. Where do you think the EPA came from?

Enviro nazis' by their very assertions make the basic assumption that man is stagnating and not going forward.

Who said that where?

In fact in many cases they want man to regress. Just look at all of the anti technology and anti energy production ideas they want passed to "protect the planet". If you can't see that connection than you are stupider than you seem to think I am. Good job.

I see no such ideas forwarded by mainstream environmentalists. I do see such ideas coming from certain religious conservatives, though, if you want to start talking about fringe groups and using them to paint large swathes of persons...

There is no reason to poison our water

Yet it happened until the environmentalists got the Clean Water Acts passed. Still happens, but far less.

The survivors of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been extensively studied (as have the Australian POW's who were within 1500 yards of the blast, all survived and other than one man who died in the 1970's of stomach cancer all lived long lives) since the war and other than a slightly higher incidence of leukemia the effects of the radiation have been negligable.

Sure, no major effects in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, once you write off everyone who died of radiation poisoning pretty early on...

 

[westwall]

Mankind is getting better and better at using the planet without abusing it.

by heeding the environmentalists. Where do you think the EPA came from?

Enviro nazis' by their very assertions make the basic assumption that man is stagnating and not going forward.

Who said that where?

I see no such ideas forwarded by mainstream environmentalists. I do see such ideas coming from certain religious conservatives, though, if you want to start talking about fringe groups and using them to paint large swathes of persons...

There is no reason to poison our water

Yet it happened until the environmentalists got the Clean Water Acts passed. Still happens, but far less.

The survivors of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been extensively studied (as have the Australian POW's who were within 1500 yards of the blast, all survived and other than one man who died in the 1970's of stomach cancer all lived long lives) since the war and other than a slightly higher incidence of leukemia the effects of the radiation have been negligable.

Sure, no major effects in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, once you write off everyone who died of radiation poisoning pretty early on...

Yes man was very destructive during the early part of industrialisation and all the way up to the 1970's. And yes environmentalists were instrumental in preventing further damage(would you care to point out where I am anti environmentalist) and the EPA was created by tricky Dick Nixon a nasty Republican president, surprising isn't it?

I have never said that environmentalism is bad. I have said that environmentalism run amock is. I can point out the disaster of MTBE forced on the nation by environmentalists who wanted to clean the air, the problem is they poisoned the water in the process. Why? Because they rushed a program into place before they had done their homework.
California has had to close thousands of wells due to MTBE contamination.

Here is Delaware's MTBE sheet. As you can see it is some pretty nasty stuff and was forced on the public even though many aspects of it were unknown.
http://www.dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dph/files/mtbefaq.pdf

Another example of environmentalism run amock is the Kaibab Plateau disaster where environmentalists transplanted deer to the plateau (where none had been before) because no one could hunt them. Within 3 years the deer had eaten EVERYTHING on the plateau and rendered it sterile. Now nothing can live there. I would say that was a failure how about you?

I can go on and on but I get too depressed when I do so as the destruction was unneccessary. It is allways perpetrated by good hearted people who have no scientific background and the results are universally the same. The people feel good about what they've done and they go away....but then nature rears her ugly head and disaster ensues.

 

[xotoxi]

Typical con trick. Find the most out-there types and make them out to be typical. While many of the things mentioned have happened from time to time, saying that those are mainstream opinions is FRAUD!!!

a. One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding. J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19

b. “In 1867 the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel coined the term 'ecology'
and began to establish it as a scientific discipline dedicated to studying
the interactions between organism and environment. Haeckel believed in nordic racial superiority, strenuously opposed race mixing and enthusiastically supported racial
eugenics. Haeckel contributed to that special variety of German
thought which served as the seed bed for National Socialism. He
became one of Germany's major ideologists for racism, nationalism
and imperialism…he fulminated in antisemitic tones…played a
key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement.” Eco Fascism / Fascist Ideology : the Green Wing of the Nazi Party and Its Historical Antecedents by Peter Staudenmaier


Has it every entered your consciousness that the other side may just be correct, and you have been misled by dogma and ideology...?

Try the Descarte menthod...

Do you consider people who wish to protect the environment Nazis?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Typical con trick. Find the most out-there types and make them out to be typical. While many of the things mentioned have happened from time to time, saying that those are mainstream opinions is FRAUD!!!

a. One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding. J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19

b. “In 1867 the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel coined the term 'ecology'
and began to establish it as a scientific discipline dedicated to studying
the interactions between organism and environment. Haeckel believed in nordic racial superiority, strenuously opposed race mixing and enthusiastically supported racial
eugenics. Haeckel contributed to that special variety of German
thought which served as the seed bed for National Socialism. He
became one of Germany's major ideologists for racism, nationalism
and imperialism…he fulminated in antisemitic tones…played a
key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement.” Eco Fascism / Fascist Ideology : the Green Wing of the Nazi Party and Its Historical Antecedents by Peter Staudenmaier


Has it every entered your consciousness that the other side may just be correct, and you have been misled by dogma and ideology...?

Try the Descarte menthod...

Do you consider people who wish to protect the environment Nazis?

It is so rare that I see you engage in the serious side of debates...

No, I see those who would impose their restrictive views on others by force of government rather than by education, as fascists, nazis, communists, progressives....

Be happy to defend that view.

"In the book, Goldberg argues that contrary to conventional wisdom, fascist movements were and are left-wing. He states that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".[2] Goldberg has told interviewers that the title Liberal Fascism comes "directly from a speech that H.G. Wells gave to the Young Liberals at Oxford in 1932."[3][4][5] Goldberg claims that Wells had stated that he wanted to "assist in a kind of phoenix rebirth" of liberalism as an "enlightened Nazism."

Goldberg argues that over time, the term fascism has lost its actual meaning and instead has descended to the level of being "a modern word for 'heretic,' branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic" and that this devolution of the meaning is not new, noting that George Orwell (a democratic socialist) had observed this in 1946 when he described the word as no longer having any meaning except to signify "something not desirable".

…reference to comments made by comedian George Carlin on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher when he said that "when fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley."
Liberal Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[editec]

Plastics never actually 'decompose', they merely break down into smaller and smaller pieces.

Being an inorganic material, it will never compost.

 

[Old Rocks]

Westwall,

Yes and you allways acuse me of lying then never back your assertions up, though we can certainly point to many prevarications commited by you. And I'm still waiting for the name of that Japanese scientist there old fraud. If you have taken the geology classes you claim then coming up with his name should be no problem. I even gave you a 50/50 shot at it, if you just choose to guess.

I can guarantee you that even a C level student of mine would get it right (going over my records i found that they actually all did! The D students only had a 67% accuracy rate however) so don't disappoint me.

And I REALLY am disapointed that you never ever mentioned J. Tuzo Wilson. For someone to make the claims you make and then never mention him is strange to say the least....makes one wonder if you're not full of doo doo. But then my wife just thinks you're a factual posturer so I'm inclined to agree with her
...............................................................................................................................

And what does the Grand Old Man of plate tectonic theory and deciphering of ophiolites have to do with global warming?

As for you other BS, when you use something like the natural reactors in Africa as a arguement that Plutonium is harmless, one has to question your honesty and intent.

IEER:Health Effects of Plutonium

One of the few attempts to analyze the effects of microgram quantities of plutonium on exposed human subjects was a long-term study of 26 "white male subjects" from the Manhattan Project exposed to plutonium at Los Alamos in 1944 and 1945, where the first nuclear weapons were made. These subjects have been followed for a long period of time, with the health status of the subjects periodically published. The most recent results were published in a study in 1991.3

The amounts of plutonium deposited in the bodies of the subjects were estimated to range from "a low of 110 Bq (3 nCi) ...up to 6960 Bq (188 nCi),"4 corresponding to a weight range of 0.043 micrograms to 3 micrograms. However, weaknesses in the study resulted in considerable uncertainties about the amount and solubility of plutonium actually incorporated at the time of exposure.5

Of the seven deaths by 1990, one was due to a bone cance (bone sarcoma).6 Bone cancer is rare in humans. The chances of it normally being observed in a group of 26 men over a 40-year timeframe is on the order one in 100. Thus, its existence in a plutonium-exposed man (who received a plutonium dose below that of current radiation protection guidelines) is significant. 7 There are data for plutonium exposure in other countries, notably in Russia. These are still in the process of being evaluated. Collaborative US-Russian studies are now beginning under the Joint Coordinating Committee on Radiation Effects Research (JCCRER) to assess the health effects of the Mayak plant to both workers and neighbors of the facility.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Plastics never actually 'decompose', they merely break down into smaller and smaller pieces.

Being an inorganic material, it will never compost.

Nothing does in landfill...

"Sometimes, even banana peels don't decompose once they reach the landfill. For sanitary reasons, modern landfills are lined on the bottom with clay and plastic to keep waste from escaping into the soil and are covered daily with a layer of earth to reduce odor. The landfill, then, acts like a trash tomb—the garbage within receives little air, water, or sunlight. This means that even readily degradable waste objects, including paper and food scraps, are more likely to mummify than decompose."
Do plastic bags really take 500 years to break down in a landfill? - By Juliet Lapidos - Slate Magazine


"Both paper and plastic bags consume large amounts of natural resources and the majority will eventually end up in the landfill. Both bags can be recycled to some extent and can be utilized around the house. I’ve read several studies comparing the two choices and none of them agree. Some feel plastic is the better overall choice, others paper. It’s really tough to say. Paper may consume more resources to produce, however, it is also more recyclable than plastic if you include the fact that paper can be composted and plastic bags cannot."
Paper vs. Plastic – The Shopping Bag Debate Greenfeet Blog

 

[midcan5]

..."There’s also a close resemblance between the environmental and biblical views of history, as the late novelist Michael Crichton pointed out in a widely reprinted speech. “Environmentalism is in fact a perfect twenty-first-century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths,” Crichton said. “There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all.” That judgment day currently assumes the form of various global-warming disasters that will happen unless we immediately perform still more rituals. Never mind that the science so urgently instructing us to reduce carbon emissions—thus hobbling economic growth and prosperity around the world—is so young, and so poorly understood, that it can’t explain why global warming seems to have stalled over the last decade. Far more persuasive is the argument from faith: we’d better repent, because the End is nigh.

Barack Obama doubtless tapped into environmentalists’ spiritual longings when he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination. “Generations from now,” he proclaimed, “we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” Italics mine; grandiloquent prophecy his."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010


Afraid that you guys with ADD might miss the crux, I bolded it for you. It's a religion.

There are only so many categories of thought. One could easily take any topic and create a fairy tale similar to the basic fairy tale form and if it fits your worldview then you would post it as if it told me the same thing. But it doesn't as my life has been different and my experience different. Consider the 'Three Little Pigs' for instance, surely you see the metaphoric wonder of such a story. Which is the liberal which the conservative? Or Little Red Riding Hood and that second amendment or on and on.

The point is saying something is analogous to something isn't really valid criticism unless you really feel religious sentiments - in your example - are wrong. Do you really feel religious people are blind followers, lacking thought? And there are some, Sojourners for instance, who feel earth is God's creation and we should take care of it. Talk about bad people - two strikes against them in your world.


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Language-Older-Than-Words/dp/1931498555/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: A Language Older Than Words (9781931498555): Derrick Jensen: Books[/ame]

“Singular, compelling and courageously honest, this book is more than just a poignant memoir of a harrowingly abusive childhood. It relates the extraordinary journey of one man striving to save his own spirit and our planet’s . . . His visceral, biting observations always manage to lead back to his mantra: “Things don’t have to be the way they are.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

..."There’s also a close resemblance between the environmental and biblical views of history, as the late novelist Michael Crichton pointed out in a widely reprinted speech. “Environmentalism is in fact a perfect twenty-first-century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths,” Crichton said. “There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all.” That judgment day currently assumes the form of various global-warming disasters that will happen unless we immediately perform still more rituals. Never mind that the science so urgently instructing us to reduce carbon emissions—thus hobbling economic growth and prosperity around the world—is so young, and so poorly understood, that it can’t explain why global warming seems to have stalled over the last decade. Far more persuasive is the argument from faith: we’d better repent, because the End is nigh.

Barack Obama doubtless tapped into environmentalists’ spiritual longings when he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination. “Generations from now,” he proclaimed, “we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” Italics mine; grandiloquent prophecy his."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky, City Journal Spring 2010


Afraid that you guys with ADD might miss the crux, I bolded it for you. It's a religion.

There are only so many categories of thought. One could easily take any topic and create a fairy tale similar to the basic fairy tale form and if it fits your worldview then you would post it as if it told me the same thing. But it doesn't as my life has been different and my experience different. Consider the 'Three Little Pigs' for instance, surely you see the metaphoric wonder of such a story. Which is the liberal which the conservative? Or Little Red Riding Hood and that second amendment or on and on.

The point is saying something is analogous to something isn't really valid criticism unless you really feel religious sentiments - in your example - are wrong. Do you really feel religious people are blind followers, lacking thought? And there are some, Sojourners for instance, who feel earth is God's creation and we should take care of it. Talk about bad people - two strikes against them in your world.


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Language-Older-Than-Words/dp/1931498555/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: A Language Older Than Words (9781931498555): Derrick Jensen: Books[/ame]

“Singular, compelling and courageously honest, this book is more than just a poignant memoir of a harrowingly abusive childhood. It relates the extraordinary journey of one man striving to save his own spirit and our planet’s . . . His visceral, biting observations always manage to lead back to his mantra: “Things don’t have to be the way they are.”

Now, there's the old Middy...

A very well constructed response, a good parry.

But, of course, and I bet you anticipated this response: the similarities to a religious fervor, 'excommunicating' scientists who disagree (heretics), warning of the end of the world- would you like me to provide the "we only have 10-or 15- or whatever number of years or it will be too late!" and imposing which toilets, which light bulbs, what temperature at home, ....etc.....sound like a totalitarian dogma to you?
The main similarity is the requirement that we have faith! Don't question, have faith. That pretty much cinches it.

Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.

"...limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs ..."
Beliefs instead of seeking truth? Sound like a call to faith?
This is the science you want to defend?
Or the religion you wish to worship?

Now, on the off chance that your reading extends to study of the French Revolution, and the Progressive Era, let me include the provenance of this environmentalism religion...
Herbert Croly, mentor of both Wilson and TR, grew up in a home where Auguste Comte was 'worshipped'...

Of more than passing interest is Herbert Croly’s fathers’ fervent belief in the French philosopher Auguste Comte, who coined the term ‘sociology.’ Comte argued that humanity progressed in three stages and that in in the final stage mankind would throw off Christianity, and replace it with a ‘religion of humanity,’ which would marry religious fervor to science and reason. Notice the resonance with the modern liberalism spin-off, environmentalism, based on a mother-earth-religion. So many ideas stewing in the same intellectual pressure cooker…

Can you open your mind...?

 

[Foxfyre]

To boil it all down into the simplest terms, what makes radical environmenalism, including the climate change cult that has become part of that, a new religion is the conviction that everybody must conform or be consigned to hell.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, demanding that you provide evidence for your assertations is consigning you to Hell. Well, I can understand how you would feel that way.

 

[westwall]

In other words, demanding that you provide evidence for your assertations is consigning you to Hell. Well, I can understand how you would feel that way.

Typical old fraud. Here is a good essay I found and he states the case very well.

Alexander Cockburn: Dissidents Against Dogma

"The planet will continue to change, adapt and evolve, with or without us The atmosphere will continue to change as it always has under the influence of life and of geology. We can't control these things. We can barely perceive them correctly. But we can take control of how we treat each other. The best we can do for the environment and for the planet is to learn not to let undemocratic power structures run our lives. The best we can do is to reject exploitation and domination and to embrace cooperation and solidarity. The best we can do is to not trust subservient scientists and to become active agents for change beyond head-in-the-sand personal lifestyle choices.

"We need to get political, beyond corporate-controlled shadow governments and co-opted political parties. We need to take charge more than we need to recycle. Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass. Nobody else cares about global warming. Exploited factory workers in the Third World don't care about global warming. Depleted uranium genetically mutilated children in Iraq don't care about global warming. Devastated aboriginal populations the world over also can't relate to global warming, except maybe as representing the only solidarity that we might volunteer."


And I also like the observations these folks make.

Global Warming as Religion and not Science

And then of course we have this

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVhT7P0lDfI]YouTube - Audi Superbowl ad Green Police[/ame]

Were you to get your way this would be a reality. Fortunately the people are awakening.

 

[Foxfyre]

Mankind is getting better and better at using the planet without abusing it. As man progresses he will continue to get better or he will vanish like the rest of the failures. Survival of the fittest and all that you know.

Noting that your comment here is excerpted, but I don't believe that by doing so I altered the point you intended to make here.

Not only is humankind learning and evolving and getting better (more efficient), but humankind is also part of nature. It is absurd to think that birds and bees and elephants and alligators or whatever are part of nature and that humankind is not. If we approve of all other creatures on Earth doing what comes naturally--living their lives, doing what is necessary to survive, procreating, rearing their young, etc.--how did it somehow become evil when humankind does the same thing?

In fact, humankind is the ONLY creature on Earth that cares one whit about species other than itself and takes measures to preserve and protect other species.

And further, the more affluent humankind becomes, the more it demand clean soil, clean air, clean water, aesthetic beauty and conservation of other living things which it has capacity to appreciate as no other species can. And it does what it can to convince the few exceptions that exist to also appreciate and conserve.

When humankind is relegated to 'animal' status subsisting from meal to meal, it is unlikely to care about much of anything other than just that. And it will do what it must and destroy what it must in order to surve.

Helping folks achieve more aflluence is the best environmental program we can have.

 

[westwall]

Mankind is getting better and better at using the planet without abusing it. As man progresses he will continue to get better or he will vanish like the rest of the failures. Survival of the fittest and all that you know.

Noting that your comment here is excerpted, but I don't believe that by doing so I altered the point you intended to make here.

Not only is humankind learning and evolving and getting better (more efficient), but humankind is also part of nature. It is absurd to think that birds and bees and elephants and alligators or whatever are part of nature and that humankind is not. If we approve of all other creatures on Earth doing what comes naturally--living their lives, doing what is necessary to survive, procreating, rearing their young, etc.--how did it somehow become evil when humankind does the same thing?

In fact, humankind is the ONLY creature on Earth that cares one whit about species other than itself and takes measures to preserve and protect other species.

And further, the more affluent humankind becomes, the more it demand clean soil, clean air, clean water, aesthetic beauty and conservation of other living things which it has capacity to appreciate as no other species can. And it does what it can to convince the few exceptions that exist to also appreciate and conserve.

When humankind is relegated to 'animal' status subsisting from meal to meal, it is unlikely to care about much of anything other than just that. And it will do what it must and destroy what it must in order to surve.

Helping folks achieve more aflluence is the best environmental program we can have.

I couldn't have said it better!

 

[konradv]

Mankind is getting better and better at using the planet without abusing it. As man progresses he will continue to get better or he will vanish like the rest of the failures. Survival of the fittest and all that you know.

Noting that your comment here is excerpted, but I don't believe that by doing so I altered the point you intended to make here.

Not only is humankind learning and evolving and getting better (more efficient), but humankind is also part of nature. It is absurd to think that birds and bees and elephants and alligators or whatever are part of nature and that humankind is not. If we approve of all other creatures on Earth doing what comes naturally--living their lives, doing what is necessary to survive, procreating, rearing their young, etc.--how did it somehow become evil when humankind does the same thing?

In fact, humankind is the ONLY creature on Earth that cares one whit about species other than itself and takes measures to preserve and protect other species.

And further, the more affluent humankind becomes, the more it demand clean soil, clean air, clean water, aesthetic beauty and conservation of other living things which it has capacity to appreciate as no other species can. And it does what it can to convince the few exceptions that exist to also appreciate and conserve.

When humankind is relegated to 'animal' status subsisting from meal to meal, it is unlikely to care about much of anything other than just that. And it will do what it must and destroy what it must in order to surve.

Helping folks achieve more aflluence is the best environmental program we can have.

I couldn't have said it better!

That goes with out saying, westy. However, the article totally misrepresents the issue at hand. If anyone is ensuring that in the future that humans will live like animals, it's the deniers. You seem to working hard to make sure that, And further, the more affluent humankind becomes, the more it demand clean soil, clean air, clean water, aesthetic beauty and conservation of other living things which it has capacity to appreciate as no other species can, never happens. You are attempting to block that very impulse at every turn!

 

[Foxfyre]

Noting that your comment here is excerpted, but I don't believe that by doing so I altered the point you intended to make here.

Not only is humankind learning and evolving and getting better (more efficient), but humankind is also part of nature. It is absurd to think that birds and bees and elephants and alligators or whatever are part of nature and that humankind is not. If we approve of all other creatures on Earth doing what comes naturally--living their lives, doing what is necessary to survive, procreating, rearing their young, etc.--how did it somehow become evil when humankind does the same thing?

In fact, humankind is the ONLY creature on Earth that cares one whit about species other than itself and takes measures to preserve and protect other species.

And further, the more affluent humankind becomes, the more it demand clean soil, clean air, clean water, aesthetic beauty and conservation of other living things which it has capacity to appreciate as no other species can. And it does what it can to convince the few exceptions that exist to also appreciate and conserve.

When humankind is relegated to 'animal' status subsisting from meal to meal, it is unlikely to care about much of anything other than just that. And it will do what it must and destroy what it must in order to surve.

Helping folks achieve more aflluence is the best environmental program we can have.

I couldn't have said it better!

That goes with out saying, westy. However, the article totally misrepresents the issue at hand. If anyone is ensuring that in the future that humans will live like animals, it's the deniers. You seem to working hard to make sure that, And further, the more affluent humankind becomes, the more it demand clean soil, clean air, clean water, aesthetic beauty and conservation of other living things which it has capacity to appreciate as no other species can, never happens. You are attempting to block that very impulse at every turn!

It does and is happening. Despite the environmentalist religionists mostly indefensible docvtrines, those of us who are AGW skeptics and who advocate the blessings of liberty over environmental facism. . . .

those of us who are blessed the basic necessities of life and a reasonable quality of life. . . .

We actually want and demand clean soil, clean air, clean water, and aesthetic beauty.

We were demanding it four decades ago when the scientific community was certain we were destroying the ozone layer around the Earth.

We were demanding it a short three decades ago when the scientific community was concenred that we were heading into unacceptable global cooling if not a new ice age.

We were demanding it after the politico scientific community found prestige, power, and profit in advocating anthropogenic global warming.

And we were demanding it in between when the politico scientific community was focusing on some real issues such as heavy metals dumped into our oceans and needless destruction of rain forests.

And now that the AGW 'scare' is finally being appropriately debunked and funding will increasingly be drying up for that, you can be sure the politico scientific community is looking for the next big THREAT to study and write about so they can keep all that lovely funding coming in to fund their lifestyle that in no way suggests that they are in any way worried about the environment or the climate.

Just one example: Al Gore's new mega million dollar, not particularly environmentally friendly, California estate. What do you suppose the carbon footprint is for this in addition to his 10,000 sq ft mansion in Tennessee that utilizes more fossil fuels in a month than any 10 normal families together utilize in a year. Does that look like somebody who is really REALLY worried about climate change?

 

[westwall]

I couldn't have said it better!

That goes with out saying, westy. However, the article totally misrepresents the issue at hand. If anyone is ensuring that in the future that humans will live like animals, it's the deniers. You seem to working hard to make sure that, And further, the more affluent humankind becomes, the more it demand clean soil, clean air, clean water, aesthetic beauty and conservation of other living things which it has capacity to appreciate as no other species can, never happens. You are attempting to block that very impulse at every turn!

It does and is happening. Despite the environmentalist religionists mostly indefensible docvtrines, those of us who are AGW skeptics and who advocate the blessings of liberty over environmental facism. . . .

those of us who are blessed the basic necessities of life and a reasonable quality of life. . . .

We actually want and demand clean soil, clean air, clean water, and aesthetic beauty.

We were demanding it four decades ago when the scientific community was certain we were destroying the ozone layer around the Earth.

We were demanding it a short three decades ago when the scientific community was concenred that we were heading into unacceptable global cooling if not a new ice age.

We were demanding it after the politico scientific community found prestige, power, and profit in advocating anthropogenic global warming.

And we were demanding it in between when the politico scientific community was focusing on some real issues such as heavy metals dumped into our oceans and needless destruction of rain forests.

And now that the AGW 'scare' is finally being appropriately debunked and funding will increasingly be drying up for that, you can be sure the politico scientific community is looking for the next big THREAT to study and write about so they can keep all that lovely funding coming in to fund their lifestyle that in no way suggests that they are in any way worried about the environment or the climate.

Just one example: Al Gore's new mega million dollar, not particularly environmentally friendly, California estate. What do you suppose the carbon footprint is for this in addition to his 10,000 sq ft mansion in Tennessee that utilizes more fossil fuels in a month than any 10 normal families together utilize in a year. Does that look like somebody who is really REALLY worried about climate change?

: