My First Environmentalist Witness!

[PoliticalChic]

The Total Cost of Federal Regulation

1.8 TRILLION in 2012

]

That's one guy's babble. Prove that any of it is accurate or relevant.

Except that the "one guy" is a professor who served as president of several environmental groups, and has written extensively about the subject.

"Abstract
Author, teacher, naturalist, environmental activist, and World Bank consultant Wallace Vickers Kaufman was a 1961 graduate of Duke University's Trinity College majoring in English.

Collection contains correspondene, reports, journals, and miscellaneous material relating primarily to Kaufman's environmental activism and as a real estate and entrepeneurial consultat. The collection also contains material documenting his friendship with Reynolds Price, a former instructor of Kaufman's at Duke, specifically correspondence, manuscripts, and several typescripts of Price's work."
Guide to the Wallace Kaufman Papers 1959-1994 Collection Guides Rubenstein Library


On your side.....a liar....you.


Put you in your place, huh?

 

[Ava]

Now show us the way that industrialization does pollute and damage nature...

So.....I wrote "Who are the morons who support this????"

Is that what brought you scurrying out to support it?

No I just want to see you balancing your diet of propaganda...

Balance????

Balance????

What am I, "Scrubbing Bubbles....we work hard so you don't have to"????
What is this, public school???

Look, you dunce.....if there is another side to the argument, how about you find and post it.

I put up the correct information....you respond and I rip you a new one......haven't you noticed that that's how it works????

What am I, "Scrubbing Bubbles....we work hard so you don't have to"????
What is this, public school???

 

[PoliticalChic]

So.....I wrote "Who are the morons who support this????"

Is that what brought you scurrying out to support it?

No I just want to see you balancing your diet of propaganda...

Balance????

Balance????

What am I, "Scrubbing Bubbles....we work hard so you don't have to"????
What is this, public school???

Look, you dunce.....if there is another side to the argument, how about you find and post it.

I put up the correct information....you respond and I rip you a new one......haven't you noticed that that's how it works????

Not really, a true researcher would not present a one sided thesis..

Unless there is only one side, and you have simply accepted the totalitarian propaganda.

Since none of you simpletons have denied a single fact presented, clearly you have no other side.

Case closed.....or, as your icon, Al Gore likes to say, 'the debate is over.'

Hardly, but if you have a limited or closed mind, I can see your position....I am a land owner..I do not mar or destroy living things..There is no raping of the land here....I do not want every square inch destroyed by greedy profiteers that don't give damn about anything but lining their pockets with gold and silver...
You my dear, must enjoy a sterile environment with no natural beauty... Like the place where you live...

Wow....I really hit a nerve!

".I am a land owner..I do not mar or destroy living things..There is no raping of the land here....I do not want every square inch destroyed by greedy profiteers that don't give damn about anything but lining their pockets with gold and silver..."


That's quite a rant!



Problem is....I never claimed any of that in the OP.

I said:
1. environmentalism is a flimsily disguised totalitarian scheme.....
2. it has an antipathy to capitalism....
3. "Their solutions [are to] increase regulation and government control, consume less, slow down technology,...buy less, drive less, eat little or no meat, live colder in the winter and hotter in the summer, have fewer children, decrease competition..."
4. cares less and less about reason and science.
5. it is a form of Liberalism, it exhibits the same quasi-religious characteristics as Liberalism does.
6. When looking as caused of cancer...pollution is almost irrelevant."
7. EPA regulations cost at least $100 million per life [saved] for some portion of the rule."



Guess the OP was 100% correct on every count, huh?


Was this the part that got to you: "Who are the morons who support this????"

 

[initforme]

So according to this so called expert,

1). Chemicals don't really hurt people and don't make people sick
2). Having any regulations to protect the environment inhibits business
3). Business can be trusted to do the right thing
4). Business should be able to pollute more



Things that make you go hmmm. This is one person's opinion. I surely don't trust business to do the right thing... because it might cost them part of their profit. If one lives near a plant and gets sick, its pretty easy to locate the reason

 

[Camp]

PC is presenting an unbalanced assertion and one sided debate lamely disguised as a thesis by presenting a concept supporting free market applications to environmental issues and the private property rights movement that developed with the implementation of EPA regulations. When moderated or presented in a balanced way it becomes an interesting debate. When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda and given false attributes it is predictably a discussion that can go in circles endlessly as each time a point is made the debater can simply deflect and change the direction of the debate at will. As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So according to this so called expert,

1). Chemicals don't really hurt people and don't make people sick
2). Having any regulations to protect the environment inhibits business
3). Business can be trusted to do the right thing
4). Business should be able to pollute more



Things that make you go hmmm. This is one person's opinion. I surely don't trust business to do the right thing... because it might cost them part of their profit. If one lives near a plant and gets sick, its pretty easy to locate the reason

Would you quote where any expert said what you claim they said?

'Else, you appear either quite the liar, or quite demented.

Or both.

 

[Camp]

So according to this so called expert,

1). Chemicals don't really hurt people and don't make people sick
2). Having any regulations to protect the environment inhibits business
3). Business can be trusted to do the right thing
4). Business should be able to pollute more



Things that make you go hmmm. This is one person's opinion. I surely don't trust business to do the right thing... because it might cost them part of their profit. If one lives near a plant and gets sick, its pretty easy to locate the reason

Would you quote where any expert said what you claim they said?

'Else, you appear either quite the liar, or quite demented.

Or both.

See, like clock work.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is presenting an unbalanced assertion and one sided debate lamely disguised as a thesis by presenting a concept supporting free market applications to environmental issues and the private property rights movement that developed with the implementation of EPA regulations. When moderated or presented in a balanced way it becomes an interesting debate. When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda and given false attributes it is predictably a discussion that can go in circles endlessly as each time a point is made the debater can simply deflect and change the direction of the debate at will. As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc.

1. "When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda..."

When will you catch on: environmentalism IS a political agenda.

Oh....right.....never.


2. "As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc."
Let's examine this...

name call.....I correctly identify folks.

declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her...pretty much by definition; I prefer 'relentlessly awesome.'

declare victory...that would be gilding the lily

 

[PoliticalChic]

So according to this so called expert,

1). Chemicals don't really hurt people and don't make people sick
2). Having any regulations to protect the environment inhibits business
3). Business can be trusted to do the right thing
4). Business should be able to pollute more



Things that make you go hmmm. This is one person's opinion. I surely don't trust business to do the right thing... because it might cost them part of their profit. If one lives near a plant and gets sick, its pretty easy to locate the reason

Would you quote where any expert said what you claim they said?

'Else, you appear either quite the liar, or quite demented.

Or both.

See, like clock work.

But aren't you glad to finally have something you can count on....after your fingers.

 

[Camp]

PC is presenting an unbalanced assertion and one sided debate lamely disguised as a thesis by presenting a concept supporting free market applications to environmental issues and the private property rights movement that developed with the implementation of EPA regulations. When moderated or presented in a balanced way it becomes an interesting debate. When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda and given false attributes it is predictably a discussion that can go in circles endlessly as each time a point is made the debater can simply deflect and change the direction of the debate at will. As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc.

1. "When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda..."

When will you catch on: environmentalism IS a political agenda.

Oh....right.....never.


2. "As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc."
Let's examine this...

name call.....I correctly identify folks.

declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her...pretty much by definition; I prefer 'relentlessly awesome.'

declare victory...that would be gilding the lily

Environmentalism should not be a political issue. It should be and often is brought to the public' attention as a scientific issue and that is the purpose of promoting it as a political issue. People who profit from polluting and abusing natural resources hate to hear environmental issues debated in scientific terms. People understand basic science when presented in layman terms. Don't dump your cars dirty oil into the stream. It will filter into your drinking water and kill the fish and animals that depend on the stream for survival. That is the scientific argument. The political argument is that the big bossy government makes rules that interfere with how you live your life. They take away your freedom decide what is safe to dump into the stream than runs right through or borders on your private property. The stream drains into the huge river and eventually the ocean. What harm could a few quarts of old oil do? It is a natural substance found in nature and sometimes bubbles up into the environment all on it's own. Big oil spills from ships and pipelines sometimes dump tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the environment. How much harm could my few quarts of oil do?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is presenting an unbalanced assertion and one sided debate lamely disguised as a thesis by presenting a concept supporting free market applications to environmental issues and the private property rights movement that developed with the implementation of EPA regulations. When moderated or presented in a balanced way it becomes an interesting debate. When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda and given false attributes it is predictably a discussion that can go in circles endlessly as each time a point is made the debater can simply deflect and change the direction of the debate at will. As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc.

1. "When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda..."

When will you catch on: environmentalism IS a political agenda.

Oh....right.....never.


2. "As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc."
Let's examine this...

name call.....I correctly identify folks.

declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her...pretty much by definition; I prefer 'relentlessly awesome.'

declare victory...that would be gilding the lily

Environmentalism should not be a political issue. It should be and often is brought to the public' attention as a scientific issue and that is the purpose of promoting it as a political issue. People who profit from polluting and abusing natural resources hate to hear environmental issues debated in scientific terms. People understand basic science when presented in layman terms. Don't dump your cars dirty oil into the stream. It will filter into your drinking water and kill the fish and animals that depend on the stream for survival. That is the scientific argument. The political argument is that the big bossy government makes rules that interfere with how you live your life. They take away your freedom decide what is safe to dump into the stream than runs right through or borders on your private property. The stream drains into the huge river and eventually the ocean. What harm could a few quarts of old oil do? It is a natural substance found in nature and sometimes bubbles up into the environment all on it's own. Big oil spills from ships and pipelines sometimes dump tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the environment. How much harm could my few quarts of oil do?

Nonsense, Chicken Little.
"There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years."
Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea



6. Now back to the fake science of environmentalism.

Really.....the environmental movement is almost as big a failure as Obama.


"The Endangered Species Act has not saved any species, but the costs for trying for trying have run into the billions. In Travis County, Texas, for example, listing just two songbirds as endangers caused a $300 million loss in property values by limiting development potential, according to the chief tax appraiser."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 11.


a. "Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Ibid, p. 12




7. "Millions are spent excavating, treating, and reburying soil contaminated by leaking fuel tanks from service stations. In most cases, the hydrocarbon chemicals in such soil would break down into their simple and harmless components if spread in the air and sun, and tilled or composted, but all cases are treated as expensive worst cases.

The well-intended Superfund for toxic waste sites has been another expensive mistake. Of the $10 billion spent on Superfund cleanup between 1980 and 1991, the congressional Office of Technology Assessment found that researchers and administrators, not cleanup crews, received $6 billion."
Ibid.


But, heck...the movement has grown government.....just what it is supposed to do.

 

[Camp]

PC is presenting an unbalanced assertion and one sided debate lamely disguised as a thesis by presenting a concept supporting free market applications to environmental issues and the private property rights movement that developed with the implementation of EPA regulations. When moderated or presented in a balanced way it becomes an interesting debate. When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda and given false attributes it is predictably a discussion that can go in circles endlessly as each time a point is made the debater can simply deflect and change the direction of the debate at will. As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc.

1. "When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda..."

When will you catch on: environmentalism IS a political agenda.

Oh....right.....never.


2. "As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc."
Let's examine this...

name call.....I correctly identify folks.

declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her...pretty much by definition; I prefer 'relentlessly awesome.'

declare victory...that would be gilding the lily

Environmentalism should not be a political issue. It should be and often is brought to the public' attention as a scientific issue and that is the purpose of promoting it as a political issue. People who profit from polluting and abusing natural resources hate to hear environmental issues debated in scientific terms. People understand basic science when presented in layman terms. Don't dump your cars dirty oil into the stream. It will filter into your drinking water and kill the fish and animals that depend on the stream for survival. That is the scientific argument. The political argument is that the big bossy government makes rules that interfere with how you live your life. They take away your freedom decide what is safe to dump into the stream than runs right through or borders on your private property. The stream drains into the huge river and eventually the ocean. What harm could a few quarts of old oil do? It is a natural substance found in nature and sometimes bubbles up into the environment all on it's own. Big oil spills from ships and pipelines sometimes dump tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the environment. How much harm could my few quarts of oil do?

Nonsense, Chicken Little.
"There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years."
Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea

The "Dump the oil in the stream" political defense was used as an example to show how stupidity could be used as an excuse to the ridiculous idea that dumping your old oil in a stream after an oil change could be somehow OK and acceptable. Your dopey response indicates you believe it is OK to dump your old dirty oil into the stream. Because of natural oil pollution in the Pacific Ocean it is OK to dump oil into the trout stream in Pennsylvania.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is presenting an unbalanced assertion and one sided debate lamely disguised as a thesis by presenting a concept supporting free market applications to environmental issues and the private property rights movement that developed with the implementation of EPA regulations. When moderated or presented in a balanced way it becomes an interesting debate. When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda and given false attributes it is predictably a discussion that can go in circles endlessly as each time a point is made the debater can simply deflect and change the direction of the debate at will. As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc.

1. "When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda..."

When will you catch on: environmentalism IS a political agenda.

Oh....right.....never.


2. "As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc."
Let's examine this...

name call.....I correctly identify folks.

declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her...pretty much by definition; I prefer 'relentlessly awesome.'

declare victory...that would be gilding the lily

Environmentalism should not be a political issue. It should be and often is brought to the public' attention as a scientific issue and that is the purpose of promoting it as a political issue. People who profit from polluting and abusing natural resources hate to hear environmental issues debated in scientific terms. People understand basic science when presented in layman terms. Don't dump your cars dirty oil into the stream. It will filter into your drinking water and kill the fish and animals that depend on the stream for survival. That is the scientific argument. The political argument is that the big bossy government makes rules that interfere with how you live your life. They take away your freedom decide what is safe to dump into the stream than runs right through or borders on your private property. The stream drains into the huge river and eventually the ocean. What harm could a few quarts of old oil do? It is a natural substance found in nature and sometimes bubbles up into the environment all on it's own. Big oil spills from ships and pipelines sometimes dump tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the environment. How much harm could my few quarts of oil do?

Nonsense, Chicken Little.
"There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years."
Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea

The "Dump the oil in the stream" political defense was used as an example to show how stupidity could be used as an excuse to the ridiculous idea that dumping your old oil in a stream after an oil change could be somehow OK and acceptable. Your dopey response indicates you believe it is OK to dump your old dirty oil into the stream. Because of natural oil pollution in the Pacific Ocean it is OK to dump oil into the trout stream in Pennsylvania.

Except that nobody said "Dump the oil in the stream"

You really have nothing, do you.

 

[mudwhistle]

Now show us the way that industrialization does pollute and damage nature...

So.....I wrote "Who are the morons who support this????"

Is that what brought you scurrying out to support it?

Are you afraid to debate your topic? Is that why you immediately default to namecalling?

Moon wasn't debating his position......merely throwing out stereotypes.

 

[mudwhistle]

The EPA was created in 1970 by Richard Nixon with House and Senate approval.

Typical liberal argument. Doesn't matter what liberals are doing with the power today. Republicans created the opportunity for them so they're to blame for liberal malfeasance.

 

[Camp]

PC is presenting an unbalanced assertion and one sided debate lamely disguised as a thesis by presenting a concept supporting free market applications to environmental issues and the private property rights movement that developed with the implementation of EPA regulations. When moderated or presented in a balanced way it becomes an interesting debate. When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda and given false attributes it is predictably a discussion that can go in circles endlessly as each time a point is made the debater can simply deflect and change the direction of the debate at will. As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc.

1. "When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda..."

When will you catch on: environmentalism IS a political agenda.

Oh....right.....never.


2. "As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc."
Let's examine this...

name call.....I correctly identify folks.

declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her...pretty much by definition; I prefer 'relentlessly awesome.'

declare victory...that would be gilding the lily

Environmentalism should not be a political issue. It should be and often is brought to the public' attention as a scientific issue and that is the purpose of promoting it as a political issue. People who profit from polluting and abusing natural resources hate to hear environmental issues debated in scientific terms. People understand basic science when presented in layman terms. Don't dump your cars dirty oil into the stream. It will filter into your drinking water and kill the fish and animals that depend on the stream for survival. That is the scientific argument. The political argument is that the big bossy government makes rules that interfere with how you live your life. They take away your freedom decide what is safe to dump into the stream than runs right through or borders on your private property. The stream drains into the huge river and eventually the ocean. What harm could a few quarts of old oil do? It is a natural substance found in nature and sometimes bubbles up into the environment all on it's own. Big oil spills from ships and pipelines sometimes dump tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the environment. How much harm could my few quarts of oil do?

Nonsense, Chicken Little.
"There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years."
Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea

The "Dump the oil in the stream" political defense was used as an example to show how stupidity could be used as an excuse to the ridiculous idea that dumping your old oil in a stream after an oil change could be somehow OK and acceptable. Your dopey response indicates you believe it is OK to dump your old dirty oil into the stream. Because of natural oil pollution in the Pacific Ocean it is OK to dump oil into the trout stream in Pennsylvania.

Except that nobody said "Dump the oil in the stream"

You really have nothing, do you.

I used it as a example of the difference between the scientific vs. political debates that are the theme of your OP. It was used in Post #30 and you have been responding to it by including it in your responses ever since.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "When presented as a tool to promote an extreme political agenda..."

When will you catch on: environmentalism IS a political agenda.

Oh....right.....never.


2. "As a last resort PC will simply name call, declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her, declare victory, etc."
Let's examine this...

name call.....I correctly identify folks.

declare she is smarter than all who disagree with her...pretty much by definition; I prefer 'relentlessly awesome.'

declare victory...that would be gilding the lily

Environmentalism should not be a political issue. It should be and often is brought to the public' attention as a scientific issue and that is the purpose of promoting it as a political issue. People who profit from polluting and abusing natural resources hate to hear environmental issues debated in scientific terms. People understand basic science when presented in layman terms. Don't dump your cars dirty oil into the stream. It will filter into your drinking water and kill the fish and animals that depend on the stream for survival. That is the scientific argument. The political argument is that the big bossy government makes rules that interfere with how you live your life. They take away your freedom decide what is safe to dump into the stream than runs right through or borders on your private property. The stream drains into the huge river and eventually the ocean. What harm could a few quarts of old oil do? It is a natural substance found in nature and sometimes bubbles up into the environment all on it's own. Big oil spills from ships and pipelines sometimes dump tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the environment. How much harm could my few quarts of oil do?

Nonsense, Chicken Little.
"There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years."
Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea

The "Dump the oil in the stream" political defense was used as an example to show how stupidity could be used as an excuse to the ridiculous idea that dumping your old oil in a stream after an oil change could be somehow OK and acceptable. Your dopey response indicates you believe it is OK to dump your old dirty oil into the stream. Because of natural oil pollution in the Pacific Ocean it is OK to dump oil into the trout stream in Pennsylvania.

Except that nobody said "Dump the oil in the stream"

You really have nothing, do you.

I used it as a example of the difference between the scientific vs. political debates that are the theme of your OP. It was used in Post #30 and you have been responding to it by including it in your responses ever since.

Didn't you forget to address me as 'relentlessly awesome'???


Let's remind that you have yet to deny a single fact posted in the thread.

And...there'll be more.

 

[initforme]

Why should everything come down to the cost? Some things far transcend the dollar like clean air and water. If a company can't uphold that then I would like them NOT to be in existence. In fact, I would help them move to china where they belong. Take your company and jobs to China where you can pay zero to workers and pollute the air more than it already is. I don't like the FACT that big business calls the shots in our gov't. The conservatives cry and whine like little babies that they have to tow the line. Capitalists hate any regulation that protects clean air and water. They aren't interested in the health of people .

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why should everything come down to the cost? Some things far transcend the dollar like clean air and water. If a company can't uphold that then I would like them NOT to be in existence. In fact, I would help them move to china where they belong. Take your company and jobs to China where you can pay zero to workers and pollute the air more than it already is. I don't like the FACT that big business calls the shots in our gov't. The conservatives cry and whine like little babies that they have to tow the line. Capitalists hate any regulation that protects clean air and water. They aren't interested in the health of people .

1. So it is stipulated that your last post, post #24, was pulled out of someplace the sun doesn't shine.
Totally fabricated.

2. " If a company can't uphold that then I would like them NOT to be in existence. "
So.....you intend to continue in the same vein, imagining facts not in evidence.

3. "I don't like the FACT that big business calls the shots in our gov't."
And so you continue to place your ignorance on display. Wonderful...you're exactly the sort of great mind that keeps Liberals in power.
Is the Sierra Club 'big business'?
Do you know that just about every one is a member of a lobbying group?
Here's a book for you when you learn to actually acquire an education:
. In Demosclerosis:: The Silent Killer of American Government, Jonathan Rauch points out that 7 out of 10 Americans belong to an interest group, and one out of four belong to at least four!

4. "The conservatives cry and whine like little babies that they have to tow the line."
Put your dinaro where you put your dinner.....

5. This is the part where you prove what an imbecile you are: "Capitalists hate any regulation that protects clean air and water. They aren't interested in the health of people ."
a. Ever pass junior high school biology? Did they tell you that capitalists don't breath the same air you do, or drink the same water?
See how stupid your statement is?

b. Know who the capitalists are?
“Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html


Gads, you're dumb.
This is the result of government owning and operating the schools.

 

[Camp]

Environmentalism should not be a political issue. It should be and often is brought to the public' attention as a scientific issue and that is the purpose of promoting it as a political issue. People who profit from polluting and abusing natural resources hate to hear environmental issues debated in scientific terms. People understand basic science when presented in layman terms. Don't dump your cars dirty oil into the stream. It will filter into your drinking water and kill the fish and animals that depend on the stream for survival. That is the scientific argument. The political argument is that the big bossy government makes rules that interfere with how you live your life. They take away your freedom decide what is safe to dump into the stream than runs right through or borders on your private property. The stream drains into the huge river and eventually the ocean. What harm could a few quarts of old oil do? It is a natural substance found in nature and sometimes bubbles up into the environment all on it's own. Big oil spills from ships and pipelines sometimes dump tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the environment. How much harm could my few quarts of oil do?

Nonsense, Chicken Little.
"There is effectively an oil spill every day at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara where 20 to 25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years."
Natural Oil Spills Surprising Amount Seeps into the Sea

The "Dump the oil in the stream" political defense was used as an example to show how stupidity could be used as an excuse to the ridiculous idea that dumping your old oil in a stream after an oil change could be somehow OK and acceptable. Your dopey response indicates you believe it is OK to dump your old dirty oil into the stream. Because of natural oil pollution in the Pacific Ocean it is OK to dump oil into the trout stream in Pennsylvania.

Except that nobody said "Dump the oil in the stream"

You really have nothing, do you.

I used it as a example of the difference between the scientific vs. political debates that are the theme of your OP. It was used in Post #30 and you have been responding to it by including it in your responses ever since.

Didn't you forget to address me as 'relentlessly awesome'???


Let's remind that you have yet to deny a single fact posted in the thread.

And...there'll be more.

My focus has been on the way in which you distort facts by the methods of omission and selectively grouping facts to present an agenda. These are common tools used by conspiracy theorist and revisionist. It is not always the facts that count and conclude accuracy. It is the way they are presented and interpreted to present conclusions as to their meanings. You like to state a fact and make an analysis of the fact followed by a conclusion. When challenged you demand your opponent show where your facts are wrong. It doesn't matter how many folks refute your conclusions, you still demand to show how your facts are wrong. When it is shown that you have distorted and misinterpreted facts, you demand to be called awesome and deflect away from dumb analysis, misinterpretations and conclusions.
The point is that you are trying to present a case for the environmental issue being politically motivated and not based on science when in fact it is a scientific issue that has been politicized by those who profit from abusing the environment. The folks who profit from abusing the environment want the issue to be viewed as political and the folks who want to protect the environment want it to be viewed as a science issue. Viewed as a science issue, the protectors win because the science is easy to explain and understand in layman's terms. Viewed as a political issue and the abusers have opportunity to confuse, complicate and use endless methods to deflect, obfuscate, stall, etc.