Radical Environmentalism

[bripat9643]

Isn't that just semantic nonsense? There are levels below which any compound: lead, arsenic, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, chorofluorocarbons - even dioxin - are harmless. So why are THEY pollutants but not CO2?

If you're going to call CO2 a pollutant, then why not call H2O a pollutant? That would make just as much sense.

It doesn't matter what you want to call the material or the process, but adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere harms us. We need to drastically cut our GHG emissions and, if possible, reduce what's already there. Screw the semantics.

CO2 does not harm us in any way. In fact, it probably helps us. It makes plants grow faster. We don't need to do jack squat. The only thing curbing GHGs will do is vastly increase the price of electricity and raise our taxes by $trillions for zero benefit.

No one is directly adding water to the atmosphere. We are doing so indirectly by increased evaporation from increased temperatures.

CO2 is raising global temperatures. If you are unwilling to admit that, there is no point in talking to you at all.

So rather than support your claims you just stamp your foot and run home to mother.

 

[Abraham3]

I have not run home and my mother is 30 years dead. I am not going to waste my time or that of anyone else here discussing the bullshit "pollutant" issue.

Human GHG emissions and deforestation are the largest single cause to the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. If we want to avoid catastrophic harm to our descendants for centuries to come, we need to act to dramatically curtail those emissions. If those changes cost you some of your monthly dividend check, so be it. The balance of costs is grossly in favor of action rather than inaction and sooner rather than later.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I have not run home and my mother is 30 years dead. I am not going to waste my time or that of anyone else here discussing the bullshit "pollutant" issue.

Human GHG emissions and deforestation are the largest single cause to the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. If we want to avoid catastrophic harm to our descendants for centuries to come, we need to act to dramatically curtail those emissions. If those changes cost you some of your monthly dividend check, so be it. The balance of costs is grossly in favor of action rather than inaction and sooner rather than later.

The solution is nuclear, hydro and investment into fusion research. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[bripat9643]

If you're going to call CO2 a pollutant, then why not call H2O a pollutant? That would make just as much sense.



CO2 does not harm us in any way. In fact, it probably helps us. It makes plants grow faster. We don't need to do jack squat. The only thing curbing GHGs will do is vastly increase the price of electricity and raise our taxes by $trillions for zero benefit.

No one is directly adding water to the atmosphere. We are doing so indirectly by increased evaporation from increased temperatures.

CO2 is raising global temperatures. If you are unwilling to admit that, there is no point in talking to you at all.

Actually land use DOES add water vapor to the air.. Massive amounts in farming irrigation, dam projects, and actually, every time you cover the ground with asphalt or a concrete slab. Water vapor is also a primary byproduct of combustion due to fossil fuels..

Also, combustion adds water to the atmosphere. One of the main byproducts of combustion is H20. Therefore, burning fossil fuels adds water to the atmosphere.

 

[Abraham3]

But it can build up no more than increasing temperatures allow it to. Precipitation. Remember?

 

[Abraham3]

I have not run home and my mother is 30 years dead. I am not going to waste my time or that of anyone else here discussing the bullshit "pollutant" issue.

Human GHG emissions and deforestation are the largest single cause to the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. If we want to avoid catastrophic harm to our descendants for centuries to come, we need to act to dramatically curtail those emissions. If those changes cost you some of your monthly dividend check, so be it. The balance of costs is grossly in favor of action rather than inaction and sooner rather than later.

The solution is nuclear, hydro and investment into fusion research. Wouldn't you agree?

There's no need to constrain our choices, at least while in transition. We also have wind, solar PV and solar thermal, marine current and tidal hydroelectric, OTEC, wave, geothermal and whatever that sharp young engineer and her boyfriend down the road are working on.

 

[American_Jihad]

[You progressive/liberals can lead the way, will be right behind you, lol...]

Crazy talk: Environmentalists want economic “de-growth”​

Mon, 03/03/2014 - 2:00pm | posted by Jason Pye

Not too long ago, Christiana Figueres, the U.N. climate chief, gained some notoriety after praising China’s communist government for its efforts to combat climate change. She didn’t mention the 94 million deaths for which communists regimes are responsible, nor China’s ongoing human rights abuses.

The crazy from the radical environmental left, however, doesn’t end with Figueres’ fawning over communism. Nope. Believe it or not, a couple of environmental groups are actually arguing that the United States needs to “de-grow” the economy:

Environmentalists at the New Economics Foundation in London and the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C. argue that cutting the 40-hour work week and using less electricity is necessary. This includes a living wage requirement and a more progressive tax code.

...

Crazy talk: Environmentalists want economic "de-growth" | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

 

[Abraham3]

Not too long ago, Christiana Figueres, the U.N. climate chief, gained some notoriety after praising China’s communist government for its efforts to combat climate change. She didn’t mention the 94 million deaths for which communists regimes are responsible, nor China’s ongoing human rights abuses.

I bet she didn't mention the US invasion of Iraq, the Holocaust or the Black Death either.

Environmentalists at the New Economics Foundation in London and the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C. argue that cutting the 40-hour work week and using less electricity is necessary. This includes a living wage requirement and a more progressive tax code.

Less work. Tax the rich. What's your problem with that? Oh, wait, you're probably a Republican (most bitterly intolerant people are) so you worship the ground on which the wealthy walk and, whenever possible, throw yourself down to be trod on as a personal sacrifice to your gods. Right?

 

[American_Jihad]

The Environmentalist Eugenics of the Left

March 13, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

Pick up a copy of Obama’s $3.9 trillion budget and there among the TSA fee hikes, Medicare payment cuts and the $400 million for the Department of Homeland Security to fight global warming is a curious little item.

On Page 930 of the budget that never ends is $575 million for “family planning/reproductive health” worldwide especially in “areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species.”

The idea that the way to protect insects, fish and animals is by preventing human beings from having children is part of an approach known as Population, Health and Environment (PHE) which integrates population control into environmentalist initiatives.

PHE dates back to the 1980s and is practiced by mainstream organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. The Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center, which is funded partly by the US government, aggressively champions PHE eugenics and USAID funds PHE programs and distributes PHE training manuals derived in part from Wilson Center materials.

PHE had been baked into congressional bills such as the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2013 co-sponsored by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Sheila Jackson-Lee which urged meeting United Nations Millennium Development Goals by using birth control as, among other things, a means of “ensuring environmental sustainability.”

...

When Obama’s Interior Secretary Sally Jewell visited Alaska, she told the residents of an Eskimo village where nineteen people had died due to the difficulty of evacuating patients during medical emergencies that, “I’ve listened to your stories, now I have to listen to the animals.”

Jewell rejected the road that they needed to save lives because it would inconvenience the local waterfowl. When it came to choosing between the people and the ducks, Jewell chose the ducks.

...

Green programs have yet to save lives, but they do cost lives. The elderly in the United Kingdom are dying of electric poverty after facing cold winters and shocking price increases due to sustainability mandates, asthma sufferers are dying because the affordable albuterol inhalers they used were banned by the EPA, and people die in fires and floods, in natural disasters that could have been prevented, but are instead blamed on their victims by the environmentalists, who helped make them so lethal.

Not only do environmentalists kill, but they also profit from the deaths of their victims.

...

The Environmentalist Eugenics of the Left | FrontPage Magazine

 

[bripat9643]

I have not run home and my mother is 30 years dead. I am not going to waste my time or that of anyone else here discussing the bullshit "pollutant" issue.

Human GHG emissions and deforestation are the largest single cause to the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. If we want to avoid catastrophic harm to our descendants for centuries to come, we need to act to dramatically curtail those emissions. If those changes cost you some of your monthly dividend check, so be it. The balance of costs is grossly in favor of action rather than inaction and sooner rather than later.

The solution is nuclear, hydro and investment into fusion research. Wouldn't you agree?

There's no need to constrain our choices, at least while in transition. We also have wind, solar PV and solar thermal, marine current and tidal hydroelectric, OTEC, wave, geothermal and whatever that sharp young engineer and her boyfriend down the road are working on.

Who's trying to stop anyone from building a solar power generating facility if they want to? Who is constraining anyone's choices other than Obama who is trying to outlaw coal and oil?

 

[Mr. H.]

Not too long ago, Christiana Figueres, the U.N. climate chief, gained some notoriety after praising China’s communist government for its efforts to combat climate change. She didn’t mention the 94 million deaths for which communists regimes are responsible, nor China’s ongoing human rights abuses.

I bet she didn't mention the US invasion of Iraq, the Holocaust or the Black Death either.

Environmentalists at the New Economics Foundation in London and the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C. argue that cutting the 40-hour work week and using less electricity is necessary. This includes a living wage requirement and a more progressive tax code.

Less work. Tax the rich. What's your problem with that? Oh, wait, you're probably a Republican (most bitterly intolerant people are) so you worship the ground on which the wealthy walk and, whenever possible, throw yourself down to be trod on as a personal sacrifice to your gods. Right?

Define "rich".

I make $130K/yr. Am I "rich"?

 

[Abraham3]

I have not run home and my mother is 30 years dead. I am not going to waste my time or that of anyone else here discussing the bullshit "pollutant" issue.

Human GHG emissions and deforestation are the largest single cause to the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years. If we want to avoid catastrophic harm to our descendants for centuries to come, we need to act to dramatically curtail those emissions. If those changes cost you some of your monthly dividend check, so be it. The balance of costs is grossly in favor of action rather than inaction and sooner rather than later.

The solution is nuclear, hydro and investment into fusion research. Wouldn't you agree?

There's no need to constrain our choices, at least while in transition. We also have wind, solar PV and solar thermal, marine current and tidal hydroelectric, OTEC, wave, geothermal and whatever that sharp young engineer and her boyfriend down the road are working on.

Who's trying to stop anyone from building a solar power generating facility if they want to? Who is constraining anyone's choices other than Obama who is trying to outlaw coal and oil?

You are.

 

[Mr. H.]

There's no need to constrain our choices, at least while in transition. We also have wind, solar PV and solar thermal, marine current and tidal hydroelectric, OTEC, wave, geothermal and whatever that sharp young engineer and her boyfriend down the road are working on.

Who's trying to stop anyone from building a solar power generating facility if they want to? Who is constraining anyone's choices other than Obama who is trying to outlaw coal and oil?

You are.

Pardon me for being bitterly intolerant, but why is Obama trying to outlaw hydrocarbons?

 

[Abraham3]

Because he believes that 97% of scientists holding AGW to be valid means something. Because, unlike you, he's taken an oath to protect this nation and takes it seriously.

 

[American_Jihad]

The Environmentalist World War

March 26, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

The Saudi Monarchy and Putin aren’t afraid of Barack Obama or even of an F-35; they’re afraid of fracking.

Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal said that “North American shale gas production is an inevitable threat.” And Putin suddenly turned into an environmentalist when it came to fracking warning that it makes “black stuff comes out of the tap.”

The Russians and the Saudis are both threatened by American energy production for economic reasons and political reasons. America’s import of oil turned Saudi Arabia from a backward country of goat herders not that much more advanced than Afghanistan into a world power whose armies are the legions of Muslim settlers and terrorists spreading across the world.

Without Saudi oil, the Clash of Civilizations with Islam might not even be happening. Energy also allowed Putin to shore up a flailing government and put it back on the path to becoming an expanding empire. But it wasn’t really the KGB oligarchy or the Saudi monarchy that made those things happen.

It was our own environmentalists.

Islam is spreading terror worldwide fueled by oil and dreams of a global Caliphate. Asian countries face a war with China over oil in the South China Sea. Russia is rebuilding the Soviet Union at gunpoint and gaspoint. As Russia, China and Islamic groups gain more confidence; the scale of their conquests will only increase. And all three have become serious threats because of environmentalism.

...

The Environmentalist World War | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Abraham3]

You are not only out of your fucking mind, you're an ignorant,bigoted twat to boot. But just to help you present a cogent argument, how about filling us in regarding the gaping hole your argument sports: please finish making the connection between unfettered oil and gas consumption financing the attempted, violent Islamo-Soviet overthrow of all that is good and holy with environmentalism. Okay?

 

[bripat9643]

There's no need to constrain our choices, at least while in transition. We also have wind, solar PV and solar thermal, marine current and tidal hydroelectric, OTEC, wave, geothermal and whatever that sharp young engineer and her boyfriend down the road are working on.

Who's trying to stop anyone from building a solar power generating facility if they want to? Who is constraining anyone's choices other than Obama who is trying to outlaw coal and oil?

You are.

Really? How?

 

[bripat9643]

Because he believes that 97% of scientists holding AGW to be valid means something. Because, unlike you, he's taken an oath to protect this nation and takes it seriously.

Yes, lies mean something. They mean the people who repeat them are liars and scumbags.

 

[American_Jihad]

You are not only out of your fucking mind, you're an ignorant,bigoted twat to boot. But just to help you present a cogent argument, how about filling us in regarding the gaping hole your argument sports: please finish making the connection between unfettered oil and gas consumption financing the attempted, violent Islamo-Soviet overthrow of all that is good and holy with environmentalism. Okay?

AbraHAM, you look stupid talking to yo-self,
go here --> Daniel Greenfield

I'M just trying to help ya J/A...

 

[Abraham3]

AbraHAM, you look stupid talking to yo-self,
go here --> Daniel Greenfield

I find not one word by Mr Greenfield supporting your charges. Though if you like the fellow, it clearly supports my charge that you're an ignorant, bigoted twat out of your fucking mind. Thanks for the link.