Is Environmentalism going too far?

Matt84

Registered
Less than encouraging news regarding meat

I am 100% pro efficiency, and I want a clean body, town and planet. The first is my own responsibility, while the latter is up for discussion:

I am curious and would just appreciate the feedback, I'm NOT making a point here.

1) Do you think Environmentalism is a science like Ecology, or a political movement?

2) Do you feel a bit constrained when talking about the issue? Do you believe it's not PC to discuss it openly?

Shoot!
 

fedecc

Registered
I think enviromentalism is taking a wrong and dangerous path. By preaching the imminent end of the world, everything in order to stop that is valid. Is an extremmely radical message. What wouldn´t you do if you strongly belive it will stop the armagedon??

We are loosing the idea of enviromentalism as a way to improve our quality of life, which is the correct aproach. Instead mankind is beeing replaced as the ultimate objective of enviromentalism, now semi abstract conceps like the "planet" or "life", are the ultimate goal to protect.

Its basically the same radicalization you find in most ideologies and religion. When the goal is so important (salvation, the new man, the perfect society, etc.) then the means are justified. This new enviromentalism is actually quite similar to religion, in the way it preaches we must change the way we live to achive salvation, all in the backgroung of a great reckoning or armagedon.

On a smaller scale, i think the blockade a few "ambientalistas" have maintained for years now in one of the border crossing to uruguay is a good example of enviromentalism gone wrong, is just downright ecofascism.


I just realized i didn´t answer your questions, so..

1)No enviromentalism is not a science.
2)No, but its certainly getting tougher to discuss the issue rationaly as the positions are getting more radical every day.
 

tangobob

Registered
Unless we all live off grass, in cold unhaerted houses, and never travel anywhere we are all doomed.

Of course we should use the worlds natural resources with care, all things are finite, but come on. The co2 argument was first muted by Margeret Thatcher as a way of breaking the power of the miners unions, now it has taken on a life of it's own.

Study the graphs properly and you will see that global warming always leads co2.

So I would say " definitely a political movent"
 

arty

Registered
tangobob said:
Unless we all live off grass, in cold unhaerted houses, and never travel anywhere we are all doomed.

Of course we should use the worlds natural resources with care, all things are finite, but come on. The co2 argument was first muted by Margeret Thatcher as a way of breaking the power of the miners unions, now it has taken on a life of it's own.

Study the graphs properly and you will see that global warming always leads co2.

So I would say " definitely a political movent"

plants give off co2 and volcanoes dump more toxic gasses in the air than man ever could.

what should we do? tell the earth to stop being bad to itself???
 

redrum

Registered
definitely political. and yes, it has quickly become an irrational religion that uses fear as it's main tool of persuasion. it's common sense folks.

the global warming movement or "climate change"(oxymoron) as they call it now is nothing more than another attempt for goldman sachs, al gore and other crooks to create new markets and regulations to reap more profits and implement more controls into our daily lives.

this is a classic chess move where they take part truths of a common, beneficial movement, then twist and distort that movement to serve their own agenda. anyone against the agenda must be against saving the earth and protecting our children. dissenters are immediately demonized, dismissed and receive zero media coverage. the public is only told one version - the lie.

al gore refuses to engage in any kind of open debate because he knows he will be exposed as a fraud.

Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

ice core samples have been taken from antarctica where the level of co2 has been 14 times higher than today.

the earth is now cooling, not heating. when it was heating, it was due mainly to the sun and solar flare activity and NOT co2. i love how they completely ignore the power of the sun. 1.2 million earths can fit inside the sun. this great fiery mass of hydrogen and helium that burns your skin after being exposed only a few minutes couldn't possibly have anything to do with warming the planet.

New Evidence the Earth Is Cooling
http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/climate_change/2009/06/16/225766.html

when the earth was heating, other planets were heating at the same time, again increased solar activity.

to say that the culprit is co2 gas is basically declaring war on the life/carbon cycle, which is preposterous.

the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. we've had ice ages where the ice sheets have extended to the equator. the sahara desert used to be tropical. the continents used to be joined. think about it. to say that man's activities over the past 30 years have been heating the earth is ridiculous.

in short, man could not change the earth's temperature even if he tried.
 

Matt84

Registered
redrum said:
the global warming movement or "climate change"(oxymoron) as they call it now.
That be a redundancy not an oxymoron. Sorry the grammar nazi inside me ;)
Thanks for the input
 

ElQueso

Registered
I'm impressed to see so many people on this sight being logical about this issue!

I watched a 20/20 episode where John Stossel (sp?) was critiquing this issue, and particularly Al "Save the world so I can get richer" Gore's movie about human-caused global warming.

As for the CO2, he showed Gore in an auditorium displaying slides that showed a chart with CO2 levels on the top, and temperature levels on the bottom. It covered 600,000 years of data. He says (paraphrased) "see, every time CO2 rises, the temperature rises! It's an obvious correlation."

Stossel says "let's actually put the CO2 series over the temperature series and see what it really looks like." In EVERY case of rises of both series, the temperature rise preceeded the CO2 rise, usually by 100 or more years!!!!!

Gore is shown talking to a bunch of schoolkids about how the very school they're in would be underwater because global warming could raise the sea level as much as 20 feet! Man, that's serious! Those poor little schoolkids were about to crap their pants they were so scared.

Stossell says, well, that could be right IF the temperature continued to increase for more than 100 years!

He interviewed a group of scientists who were listed as supporting the findings of the international association Gore works with (can't remember the name). They tell him that they DO NOT support the findings of that organization, which are ridiculous, and have repeatedly asked the org. to remove their names as supporters. The organization responded something like "sorry, but you didn't inform us before we started using your names, so it's too late."

I have spent some time in Paraguay. I met a real estate guy there (who actually brought me to the government Senate offices in Asuncion and introduced me to Ing. M. Sc. Herminio Chena, the nation's President of the Senate) earlier in the year. He was interested in working on some projects with me, including one I found very interesting - buying some property (like 20-30 hectares) outside of Encarnacion and turning it into a neighborhood and providing mortgages, something they don't have much of now, to allow middle class people to actually own decent homes.

Another project this guy told me about was planting Eucalyptus trees to sell carbon credits to US and European businesses. The land and labor is cheap, the trees grow easily and millions of dollars are to be made off of just 20-30 hectares of land!!!!

Scare mongers, every one of them!

No one really disputes that the Earth did warm over the last century - but to the tune of .6 freaking degrees over 100 hundred years! Most scientists that are not looking only at simulations begun in the 70s, and are not tied somehow to grants related to global warming, think it's ludicrous that man is responsible for the increase.

And now, as was mentioned, weather and ocean patterns are changing again, and ice at least in the Arctic is re-freezing and increasing mass again.

Geez. Scientists can't even get the weather forecast right for much mroe than a day or two in advance often. Why do people think they can do better with an even more complex subject, with data that is much harder to collect and interpret than weather itself!
 

ElQueso

Registered
Matt84 said:
1) Do you think Environmentalism is a science like Ecology, or a political movement?

2) Do you feel a bit constrained when talking about the issue? Do you believe it's not PC to discuss it openly?
As you may have gleaned from my previous post, I do say environmentalism is in NO WAY a science.

I can be argumentative so I don't have too much of a problem putting my opinions out to the general public on most things. But yes, I try to talk to most people who parrot Gore and his ilk, and I feel like some kind of neandertal who is trying to tell a member of h. sapiens that his diet's all wrong!

Peer pressure, not cognative thinking or science.
 

Matt84

Registered
ElQueso said:
I'm impressed to see so many people on this sight being logical about this issue!
I agree it's so pleasantly surprising! I've seen that Stossel special, it is indeed very good, and he's a lot more humane than Gore when talking to kids.

I think my point of view was very clear on my thread-opener but I wanted to present it in the most cautious way possible. I agree basically with all of you, Fede just hit the nail when he suggested Environmentalism as an ideology values poison ivy more than the livelihood of a whole town, and specially when he pointed out how easy it is to convince all of us to do X thing with the threat of Apocalypse (that's what they have in common with straightforward religious types).

The point of me starting this thread was to 1) check how freely we can still talk about the subject and 2) point out that this might as well be turning into this century's new age, most accepted religion.

ElQueso said:
Another project this guy told me about was planting Eucalyptus trees to sell carbon credits to US and European businesses. The land and labor is cheap, the trees grow easily and millions of dollars are to be made off of just 20-30 hectares of land!!!!

Scare mongers, every one of them!
Similar thing happened to me. When looking into Forestry Trust Funds (some very good out there) the guy enticed me with the prospect of cashing in on hypocr--- Carbon Credits beginning next year! I would have been happy with just planting trees. That's ecofriendly.. For the love of god!
 
Top