Environmentalists' Wild Predictions

[jonathan7]

It was a statement of how much power that our environment has over us. The idea that we can do much of any significance against our earth is quite,.... erm, what did jonathan7 call it?...extremely arrogant. But, again, we've already established in this thread that no one is authorizing free and wanton pollution. I'm just trying to put things into perspective.

 

In earths long history it has suffered and recovered from far greater calamities, however a large percentage of species dyed out during those periods. We could end up in say 400 years time, killing our selves off - a rather ironic and perhaps fitting end. Is that a good enough perspective? Earths ability to recover is not in doubt.

 

Do you deny that many is slowly killing the bio-diversity of earth? We can affect the enviornment, or are you going to deny acid rain? Or what effect the nuclear age has? (Slight side note, it has always seemed to me that nuclear power was always the way to go in terms of emissions; the waste should be taken into the desert, and encassed in lead, glass and finally plastic).

 

Oh, and jonathan, it isn't the individuals that I was drawing your attention to, but the mass of people. BTW, thanks for bringing up Burma, that was a better example.

 

Individuals have a lot less in the way of effect on the environment, but you are bing naive if you don't think that 7 billion people have a massive effect on the environment.

 

The best step we could take is to replant many tree's as they are nature's natural way of dealing with 'green house gasses'. Also if you think the plastics in the ocean aren't going to have a massive and devisating impact, it will come back to bite you.

 

Burma was more recent

[Ray Jones]

Don't forget big epidemics of pest and pox, mainly caused by ourselves. Quite some time ago, but still.

 

One of the problems with the clean air/water nazis is that they keep shifting the goal post to the point where you can't have any pollution they can measure, regardless of human ability to harmlessly filter out the little bit left over after the last round of "cleansing". If you think we've got the $$ to COMLETELY clean up every mess, then you probably believe anything. You've got to work within your means and learn to live with tradeoffs.

While what you say is correct, the point is that the optimal degree of pollution *is* that of no pollution at all.

 

 

I'm just trying to put things into perspective.

Hm. Strange perspective.

[MdKnightR]

Earths ability to recover is not in doubt.

 

I see we are in agreement on this point. However, the enviro-nazis would have us believe it is permanent damage.

 

 

Do you deny that many is slowly killing the bio-diversity of earth? We can affect the enviornment, or are you going to deny acid rain? Or what effect the nuclear age has? (Slight side note, it has always seemed to me that nuclear power was always the way to go in terms of emissions; the waste should be taken into the desert, and encassed in lead, glass and finally plastic).

 

I never denied any of that. However, you must admit that we humans are not responsible for the vast majority of extinctions in the grand scope of time. I'm also pleased to see that you favor nuclear energy.

 

 

Individuals have a lot less in the way of effect on the environment, but you are bing naive if you don't think that 7 billion people have a massive effect on the environment.

 

And you are being naive if you think that individuals do less in the way of effect on the environment (or anything for that matter). Take the metaphor of a sheet of paper.....one is easy to tear by hand, but gather about 500 individuals, and its damn near impossible.

 

Also, I believe it to be naive that 7 billion people can pollute the environment more than one average volcanic explosion. Does that mean that we shouldn't clean up our own mess? Certainly not. What it means is that we can't expect to be held accountable for variables outside our control (global climate change). What people need to realize is that environmentalists don't give a damn about the planet. Its all about having control.

[jonathan7]

I see we are in agreement on this point. However, the enviro-nazis would have us believe it is permanent damage.

 

Time is a healer, we are however damaging the environment and it will effect us.

 

I never denied any of that. However, you must admit that we humans are not responsible for the vast majority of extinctions in the grand scope of time. I'm also pleased to see that you favor nuclear energy.

 

Nuclear is the way to go, I'm hopefull fusion will be brought in, which I suspect it will be.

 

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

 

In contrast to time, we have not caused many extinctions, however no other species has brought about the extinctions of multiple species.

 

And you are being naive if you think that individuals do less in the way of effect on the environment (or anything for that matter). Take the metaphor of a sheet of paper.....one is easy to tear by hand, but gather about 500 individuals, and its damn near impossible.

 

I don't see your point? An individual human has a limmited effect on an environment; many humans have a great effect on the enviornment.

 

Also, I believe it to be naive that 7 billion people can pollute the environment more than one average volcanic explosion. Does that mean that we shouldn't clean up our own mess? Certainly not. What it means is that we can't expect to be held accountable for variables outside our control (global climate change). What people need to realize is that environmentalists don't give a damn about the planet. Its all about having control.

 

I think 7 billion humans have a greater effect on the environment than 1 volcanic erruption (except for an extremley large erruption), I also think 1 nuclear bomb has a greater effect on the enviornment than pretty much all volcanic erruptions ever.

 

Consider all the things humans do; burn fossil fuels, dump plastics, hunt species, eat, mass farm, consume resources etc.

 

I also think you are dehumanising evironmentalists, illogically so indeed I find no logic what so ever in this statement;

 

Its all about having control.

 

I don't think ever single environmentalist does it because its about control, I think many care about animals and the environment; perhaps too much so; such as PETA; I think they should worry about animals once 20,000 African children aren't dying in Africa everyday. However the environment does have a direct contribution to humans. So for example in the UK, the fossil fuels we burn here, go over Sweden, a very green country; it effects them, is that fair? Should we not do something about that?

 

I also think I don't have an axe to grind here; but do you?

[nine.roses]

Am I wrong in noting that Walter Williams has just presented us with a gigantic straw man and an argumentum ad hominem?

 

I mean, England disappearing is amongst the more outlandish of predictions, but I don't think the idea was widely supported in the scientific community. It's when a great number of scientists who have done research into the matter agree that one needs to be worried. I wouldn't rate the majority of "greenie-weenie" scientists amongst this apparent "fear-mongering" group, in fact I am sure many have come to their conclusions entirely objectively; and without making a big fuss, unlike the few oddballs Williams has picked on.

 

This is the only part of Mr Williams's analysis which isn't non-sequitur to global warming:

 

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

 

I would like to ask: what research has he done that would indicate that his brief pick-and-mix of anti-global warming ideas are more valid than the rather more detailed and soundly structured conclusions of pro-global warming scientists who have dedicated a great deal of time on the subject? What, but for rhetorical devices, even merits us listening to his fallacies?

 

Oh, and am I right in thinking that Walter Williams is amongst the SUV driving "environment what?" class of right-wing Americans who just wants to continue his lifestyle of mass waste?

[Jae Onasi]

OK, folks, calling each other naive and/or deluded is drifting into the flame-baiting category. Please refrain from that kind of thing.

[Totenkopf]

In contrast to time, we have not caused many extinctions, however no other species has brought about the extinctions of multiple species.

A little hard to prove, given that if evolution is correct (not saying it's not, btw) life has been around for hundreds of millions of years unobserved by modern man.

I also think 1 nuclear bomb has a greater effect on the enviornment than pretty much all volcanic erruptions ever.

Once again, based on what? 1 nuke (Little Boy and Fatman were merely firecrackers compared to what exists today) does not have the effect on the environment that a volcano does, less it be of sufficiently large size and placed on a target like a city.

I also think you are dehumanising evironmentalists, illogically so indeed I find no logic what so ever in this statement

I think this is an overstatement. It's pretty clear that he's talking about the more ardent envirowhackos. Just like not every animal lover wants to legally elevate animals to the exact same legal status as humans or every religious person wants to convert the world by the sword, not every enviromentalist wants to burn down housing developments, car dealerships or even want to kill people who don't agree with their agenda like ALF or ELF.

I don't think ever single environmentalist does it because its about control, I think many care about animals and the environment; perhaps too much so; such as PETA; I think they should worry about animals once 20,000 African children aren't dying in Africa everyday. However the environment does have a direct contribution to humans. So for example in the UK, the fossil fuels we burn here, go over Sweden, a very green country; it effects them, is that fair? Should we not do something about that?

I'm curious as to what harm they are claiming. Everything people do in one place has a greater chance of affecting another part of the world now b/c of global interconnectivity and advances in technology in general. I see no point in dismantling the current system w/o effectively having something in place to replace it with to minimize disruptions. We're not going to stop breeding or retreat back to the cave to "heal the planet". I think it's been established that while some of us disagree with your overall assessment of things, that noone is saying that people should pollute indiscriminately (throwing plastics in the ocean being but one example). Just don't expect people to turn their lives completely upside down over speculative science like the global warming scare we're currently being subjected to.

I also think I don't have an axe to grind here......

No more than MdKnightR, apparently.

While what you say is correct, the point is that the optimal degree of pollution *is* that of no pollution at all.

Ah, but to expect perfecton from the imperfect is a form of insanity.

You have..." just presented us with an argumentum ad hominem", 9.roses.

Oh the sweet irony.

Oh, and am I right in thinking that Walter Williams is amongst the SUV driving "environment what?" class of right-wing Americans who just wants to continue his lifestyle of mass waste?

[nine.roses]

Well, Totenkopf, you're entirely right. I apologise. I suppose in the grand scheme of things I can get away with that little assault on his character though, as I'm fortunate that I'm not basing my entire argument on global warming around it.

[MdKnightR]

I don't see your point? An individual human has a limmited effect on an environment; many humans have a great effect on the enviornment.

 

 

The point I'm trying to make is that everyone contributes. Do you not agree?

 

 

I think 7 billion humans have a greater effect on the environment than 1 volcanic erruption (except for an extremley large erruption), I also think 1 nuclear bomb has a greater effect on the enviornment than pretty much all volcanic erruptions ever.

 

I'd be curious to see facts that back up that assertion.

 

 

 

I also think you are dehumanising evironmentalists, illogically so indeed I find no logic what so ever in this statement;

 

By control, I mean that enviro-nazis are not too unlike evangelical Christians in their desire to tell you how to live. It wasn't meant to "dehumanize" anyone.

 

 

I don't think ever single environmentalist does it because its about control, I think many care about animals and the environment; perhaps too much so; such as PETA; I think they should worry about animals once 20,000 African children aren't dying in Africa everyday.

 

Don't get me started about PETA. I'm a vegetarian, but not a militant one.

 

However the environment does have a direct contribution to humans. So for example in the UK, the fossil fuels we burn here, go over Sweden, a very green country; it effects them, is that fair? Should we not do something about that?

 

I believe I addressed this when I said that no one is advocating free and wanton pollution. By all means, if you make a mess, clean it up.

 

I also think I don't have an axe to grind here; but do you?

 

 

No more than you.

[jonathan7]

Sorry for slow reply, been quite busy over the last week, slowly trying to catch up with the backlog of posts in KC.

 

OK, folks, calling each other naive and/or deluded is drifting into the flame-baiting category. Please refrain from that kind of thing.

 

I apologise, it wasn't intended as a flame, and MdKnightR saying it to me, didn't offend me, I am however sorry if he, or anyone else was offended, and I won't say such things again.

It's far easier to put out one little flame than it is to put out a forest fire. Even if you two don't mind saying that to each other, if it's allowed here, others will also do it, and it'll quickly get out of control. --Jae

 

First on axe grinding;

 

No more than you.

 

Personally I don't think I have an axe to grind, though I do think all nations do need to review environmental policy. If you realy think humans don't have a big effect on where they live consider Easter Island, and how the humans killed themselves off by cutting down all the tree's... Here's what I think;

 

Firstly I think Nuclear power is the way to go in terms of energy, Solar energy and Fusion should continued to be researched, I see little point in other forms of green energy as I don't think they will generate sufficient ammounts of energy. Solar is the exception given that all living things get there energy from it, and obsiously fusion is taking that one step closer to the orginiator.

 

Tree's, they are natures air cleaning filter, and we have been and are cutting alot down, they absorb alot of nasty things in the atmopshere. We should offer countries such as Brazil financial insentives not to cut down tree's. We should also have extensive replanting schemes.

 

The Sea, perhaps the thing most polluted by us, I would suggest we stop dumping things in it, and try to deal with unnatural wastes we have put in it such as plastic. Responsible fishing is also required.

 

Emissions, now I'm not a greenie, however I do think people need to think about car use

 

The point I'm trying to make is that everyone contributes. Do you not agree?

 

I agree, and all of us do have quite a large effect.

 

I'd be curious to see facts that back up that assertion.

 

In terms of Nukes, radioactivity, the other is at least to me common sense.

 

 

Don't get me started about PETA. I'm a vegetarian, but not a militant one.

 

lol, I have no problems with veggies, but PETA are a bunch of idiots.

 

by control, I mean that enviro-nazis are not too unlike evangelical Christians in their desire to tell you how to live. It wasn't meant to "dehumanize" anyone.

 

Firstly as a Christian I would remark, it is illogical to think a non-Christian should behave to 'Christian standards' given, non-Christians don't believe what Christians believe.

 

The same is somewhat applicable to the environment, though we do need to act responsily with earth, it is a pretty unique place in the universe, and if people want to freely want and pollute they should not be allowed to do so.

 

Just my 2 cents, thanks for reading