PDA

View Full Version : The humorous and sad issue of environmentalism.



Hobbes91
Jan 28th 2009, 03:29 AM
While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.” http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece

There goes my primary schoolwork research source! Forget going to the library to pour over books, driving, bicycling, walking or any sort of action that involves moving is worse! :lol:

Only joking, but do I feel sad for some of these environmentalists and the lengths they go to to "save" their god, the Earth.

A perfect example of their irrational actions and hypocrisy is how ineffective they are. Many environmentalists eat meat:


"Given the urgency for global action—calls echoed by scientists and world leaders alike—individual consumers must also participate. McMichael et al. (2007) put forth several recommendations, including the reduction of meat and milk intake by high-income countries as "the urgent task of curtailing global greenhouse-gas emissions necessitates action on all major fronts"; they concluded that, for high-income countries, "greenhouse-gas emissions from meat-eating warrant the same scrutiny as do those from driving and flying."
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/11034/abstract.html

"...livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport."
Livestock's Long Shadow

"Food miles don't feed climate change - meat does"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13741

...a kilogram of grain-fed beef raised in Japan is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home.
http://www.farmnews.co.nz/news/2007/july/772.shtml
It's unbelievable how closely these two liberal agendas are connected. It's not surprising that the very outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins, authour of The God Delusion supports both:


I personally find it insulting that someone would compare belief in climate change to religion. Climate researchers are not clergymen trying to promote a specific agenda. This belies the work of serious scientists that search for answers in nature, and it undermines the serious skepticism and probing that is still occurring. It seems to me reasonable to assume that any major changes to the temperature of the Earth may have dire consequences. If this means that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels, we have to consider the ramifications of our inaction."


“What I am doing is going along with the fact that I live in a society where meat eating is accepted as the norm, and it requires a level of social courage which I haven't yet produced to break out of that. Its a little bit like the position which many people would have held a couple of hundred years ago over slavery. Where lots of people felt morally uneasy about slavery but went along with it because the whole economy of the South depended upon slavery.“



It's these environmentalist and animal rights agendas that corrupt the minds of God's children, making them think that animals and the earth is as important as God or any of us. They need the love of Jesus and we should pray for them.

Gulah Papyrus
Jan 28th 2009, 04:05 AM
It get's even better....

http://www.twincities.com/ci_11560008?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com&IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com (http://www.twincities.com/ci_11560008?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com&IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com)


Even if global carbon dioxide levels reverted to pre-industrial levels, it still would take 1,000 years or longer for the climate changes already triggered to be reversed, scientists said Monday.
The gas that is already there and the heat that has been absorbed by the ocean will exert their effects for centuries, according to the analysis, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Over the long haul, the warming will melt the polar icecaps more than previously estimated, raising ocean levels substantially, the report said.
And changes in rainfall patterns will bring droughts comparable to the ones that caused the 1930s Dust Bowl to the American Southwest, southern Europe, northern Africa and western Australia.
"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide, the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years," lead author Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in a telephone news conference. "That's not true."
The changes will persist until at least the year 3000, said Solomon, who conducted the study with colleagues in Switzerland and France.
Scientists familiar with the report said it emphasizes the need for immediate action to control emissions.
"As a climate scientist, this was my intuition," said geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona. "But they have done a really good job of working through the details and
... make a case that the situation is more dire than we thought if we don't act quickly and aggressively to curb carbon dioxide emissions."
The new finding depends upon the fact that water in the ocean circulates very slowly. The primary way carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere is through absorption in the ocean, and that is an incredibly slow process because it takes a long time for surface waters saturated with the gas to be replaced by deeper waters that can absorb more.
Carbon dioxide accounts for only about half of the global warming caused by greenhouse gases, but the other gases are removed from the atmosphere much more quickly. Thus, the long-term influence of carbon dioxide will have the greatest influence on climate change, according to the findings.
Moreover, heat absorbed by the ocean is released very slowly, contributing to global warming even if the concentration of greenhouse gases should decline, the authors said.

shepherdsword
Jan 28th 2009, 01:03 PM
Here is a look at how the UN has gobbled up all of national parks under the guise of environmentalism. They were signed away to the UN under Clinton's executive order as "collateral" for our debt to the federal reserve.
We need to wake up people. The new world order is coming fast and we are first on the menu. We have marginalized the people who have been trying to warn us by calling them conspiracy quacks. This is a lengthy 2 hour video on the planned demise of America by the international banking community.

America: Destroyed by Design

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zoDLI3HszU&feature=related

Luke34
Jan 28th 2009, 01:51 PM
"I personally find it insulting that someone would compare belief in climate change to religion. Climate researchers are not clergymen trying to promote a specific agenda. This belies the work of serious scientists that search for answers in nature, and it undermines the serious skepticism and probing that is still occurring. It seems to me reasonable to assume that any major changes to the temperature of the Earth may have dire consequences. If this means that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels, we have to consider the ramifications of our inaction." That, uh, seems...reasonable...doesn't it? I mean, maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't understand what's so amusing about a statement like "Scientific research suggests that we may be doing serious harm to the place we have to live for the foreseeable future, and maybe it's a good idea to try to curtail that harm." That's not making the planet into God or anything of the sort, and responding to any suggestion that maybe we could cut down on the greenhouse gases a little with derisive amusement is kind of strange. I mean, "The planet is not God" does not logically lead to "We can do anything we like to the planet, including causing it irreparable damage, even though we will probably always have to live here. And anyone who suggests otherwise is an earth-worshipping hippie who doesn't believe in God."

diffangle
Jan 28th 2009, 02:28 PM
We need to be good stewards of the land and animals... imo, we do need to change some things in order to be good stewards but adding another tax to the population is not the answer which is the real "cause" behind these globalists/hypocrites like Gore.

In Dust and Ashes
Jan 28th 2009, 04:13 PM
I don't actually know a lot about this topic, but from what I've picked up from atheistic or evolutionary views on the topic:

The earth is millions of years old and humans have only been on the planet for a small fraction of that time. Even smaller fraction of that time was spent doing anything that might have an impact on the environment (i.e. agriculture, industry, etc). With this in mind, we have not lived long enough to have a significant impact on anything and it is actually prideful to think that we do.
Along those same lines, it has been proven that the earth goes through climate change cycles every so often without our help. Theres no evidence that this is anything but one of those cycles and nothing we do will perpetuate, nor stop it.

AngelAuthor
Jan 28th 2009, 09:04 PM
From a Scientific Point of View: I don't believe that the "science" of man-made climate change (and since when did we stop calling it "global warming...oh, since that too got debunked like crazy?) because of reasons like this:

we have not lived long enough to have a significant impact on anything and it is actually prideful to think that we do.
Which is true, and this:

Along those same lines, it has been proven that the earth goes through climate change cycles every so often without our help.Which is ALSO true. Among other scientific realities, the idea that we can affect our planet that significantly is absurd. Almost as absurd as evolution.

not quite, though. ;)

From a Spiritual Point of View: God predicted all of this, which gives me untold peace. Hippies forbidding us to eat meat, and worshiping the planet as it undergoes all kinds of major changes in the end times.

So I have no fear.

That plus the reality...the Revelation-based reality, that God is not going to let this planet blow up or become uninhabitable, or mankind to die out, because if any of that happened...umm...God would kind of be proven wrong, which can't happen. He'll step in long before we destroy ourselves...or maybe just BEFORE we destroy ourselves...one way or the other, we're not going down that road.

I just can't get hyped up about climate change...sorry. For me none of it makes sense from a Scientific point of view or the (far more important) SPIRITUAL point of view either.

Please note that nothing of what I've posted means that I don't believe in a reasonable level of sustainability or environmental concern, but what is moderate to me may seem bohemian to some and make me a saint to others.

In Dust and Ashes
Jan 28th 2009, 10:02 PM
I don't believe in a reasonable level of sustainability or environmental concern

I fully support and encourage environmentally friendly behavior. I think it's a logical sense of responsibility; not a frantic plea with doomsday.

Hobbes91
Jan 29th 2009, 12:53 AM
We need to be good stewards of the land and animals... imo, we do need to change some things in order to be good stewards but adding another tax to the population is not the answer which is the real "cause" behind these globalists/hypocrites like Gore.

I fully support and encourage environmentally friendly behavior. I think it's a logical sense of responsibility; not a frantic plea with doomsday.

The only effective environmentally friendly behaviour, according to environmentalist scientists is:

3. Do not use transport that burns fossil fuels, unless you eat meat because a walking omnivore emits more emissions by walking:

“Food production creates carbon emissions.” Now, you could argue that most people are overweight and so could use the exercise anyway, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not going to consume calories to replace the ones they’ve burned. In fact, some experts argue that most people do in fact simply eat more to compensate (which is one reason so many people remain overweight). And judging from the fitness of the pedicab drivers I’ve seen, they don’t have much weight to lose anyway.

If you walk 1.5 miles, Mr. Goodall calculates, and replace those calories by drinking about a cup of milk, the greenhouse emissions connected with that milk (like methane from the dairy farm and carbon dioxide from the delivery truck) are just about equal to the emissions from a typical car making the same trip. And if there were two of you making the trip, then the car would definitely be the more planet-friendly way to go.2. Do not eat animal products (see the information in the first post) Over half of environmentalists are vegetarians and animal rights activists as well.

1. Do not have children

shocking, yet common quotes from a popular environmentalist forum:


If spaced at the naturally occurring density of other comparably sized omnivores, there should at the most be maybe 100 million people in the world (and that's a lot, about 5 per square mile of habitable land).
You can't have a sustainable system until you control population growth. If humans refuse to control their numbers they are commiting an act of aggression against the planet. At that point I honestly suggest Gaia do what she needs to do to defend herself. If some people don't like that I'm sorry.

These decisions are not being made at the rational level.
There is only one possible solution to population growth.

Mandatory Global Castrations for 95% of the male population.The following is a response to the above:

Why not tie female tubes? Say after the birth of a child you require women to have their tubes tied. You could make it part of the birth proceedure. The religious people wouldn't even have much arguement over that because it doesn't interfere with a living human fetus, and if God wanted you to have a second child, I'm sure He'd find a way (actually tied tubes are no where near 100% effective, but it'd be good enough to reduce the population).

Here's another idea, our bio-weapons research labs could create a nasty disease like ebola and release it on some african nations to study it's effects and ability to spread... oh wait, you were talking about things we COULD do, not things we HAVE done. http://forums.treehugger.com/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif http://forums.treehugger.com/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif

I guess I'll go for the castration then... as long as it's an after the first child deal. Everyone should be allows to have 1.Adopting Communist China's 1-child policy is very popular among the environmentalists who would prefer to not wipe out humanity. Many others still, will not stop until:

We will rid the earth of all its resources, and thereby eliminate humanity....And there is much, much, much more of the same by different people, all brainwashed by the same destructful idealogy.

I thought animal rights activists were dangerous when they compare the killing of animals to slavery (as militant atheist Richard Dawkins does) or worse, to the Holocaust, but after examining environmentalism I am convinced it is a far greater evil. It's only these people that are consistently talking about another Final Solution.

Gulah Papyrus
Jan 29th 2009, 01:47 AM
Environmentalism? I prefer the term 'Creation Care'.:D

In Dust and Ashes
Jan 29th 2009, 01:48 AM
I have environmentalist friends. What you've done is take the most extreme aspects of them and generalized it to say that that represents "most" of them. It doesn't. None of my environmentalist friends are vegetarians, none of them are for controlling the number of children a person has, none of them think that cars are of the devil. They simply advocate responsibility and informed actions.

Think about this: Do the most outspoken and adamant Christians in the media represent the majority of Christians in America? no. So don't assume the same for any other group of people.

Dani H
Jan 29th 2009, 01:58 AM
I don't actually know a lot about this topic, but from what I've picked up from atheistic or evolutionary views on the topic:

The earth is millions of years old and humans have only been on the planet for a small fraction of that time. Even smaller fraction of that time was spent doing anything that might have an impact on the environment (i.e. agriculture, industry, etc). With this in mind, we have not lived long enough to have a significant impact on anything and it is actually prideful to think that we do.
Along those same lines, it has been proven that the earth goes through climate change cycles every so often without our help. Theres no evidence that this is anything but one of those cycles and nothing we do will perpetuate, nor stop it.

Maybe, but it's a) great for business and making lots of money (buy more Priuses please), b) great for furthering someone's political career (Mr. Gore, anyone?), and c) a great way to exercise control over people and their rights in the name of the "environment."

Having said that, I do believe that stewardship is important and it would be really nice if the people who actually ruthlessly exploit our resources and kill and maim people, animals and plants with reckless abandon should be called on the carpet. Except nobody wants to take those on so it's easier to beat up on the nameless, faceless general public and put lies into our heads about "carbon footprints" and make people paranoid about everything they do and buy. And raise taxes, of course. Argh.

In Dust and Ashes
Jan 29th 2009, 02:06 AM
b) great for furthering someone's political career (Mr. Gore, anyone?)

I don't think it ever furthered his political career. It got him some spotlight for a time when people had forgotten about him, but in the end, nobody gives him much thought anyway.

Hobbes91
Jan 29th 2009, 05:26 AM
None of my environmentalist friends are vegetarians, none of them are for controlling the number of children a person has, none of them think that cars are of the devil.
By definition, they are not environmentalists:


http://www.wordreference.com/definition/environmentalist
environmentalist Anoun
1 environmentalist, conservationist (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/conservationist)

someone who works to protect the environment from destruction or pollution

By having children, by riding fossil fuel burning transport, and consuming meat, these people are as effective at being environmentalists as one who believes they are a "patriot" will act to support America by paying 4.99 for a "Support the Troops" car sticker that was made in China.

By definition, your friends are non-environmentalists because their actions "destroy the earth", at least according to the environmentalist sources I've povided on the primary three issues of importance to tree huggers.

That is the humorous part, your friends and people like they are Pharisees because you do not practice what you preach: "care for the environment". Your actions do not show that you do, according to environmentalist information. The sad, and now horrifying part, in the extent which many environmentalist go to to fulfill their moral obligations as illustrated above.

Finally, no, I am not taking "the worst" and posting it here. Population is something that is brought up very often on environmentalist forums and these quotes represent the opinion of a fair sized population.

In Dust and Ashes
Jan 29th 2009, 03:43 PM
Finally, no, I am not taking "the worst" and posting it here. Population is something that is brought up very often on environmentalist forums and these quotes represent the opinion of a fair sized population.

And how have you determined that? I'd like to see the survey.

You're being very narrow in your definition of what makes an environmentalist. In essence, you have taken it upon yourself to determine what others believe when they label themselves.

What makes a christian? someone who follows christ? What about those that get divorced? are they still christians? are they hypocrites? It doesn't matter how you answer those questions, the point is that different christians believe different things about it.

Likewise, you can't define another group of people by what they don't agree with.

Hobbes91
Jan 30th 2009, 06:24 PM
You misread because as I stated, these are quotes from posts that are very common on environmentalist forums. Every once in a great while I will check these types of anti-religious forums to keep tabs and every time there are several topics on population and there are always comments like those - and I should note that somehow, in many topics not just related to the population issue, Christianity is regularly mocked and ridiculed, it can go on for pages ad pages.... It's proof that a large portion of the environmental community is very hateful towards humans or at least harbors secret dislike towards humanity, only ever sharing it online. I only ever see such comparable disgusting things said on racist forums, and I think I should note that Hitler was said by german propaganda to be an environmentalist and a vegetarian as well. Pol Pot, the world's worst murderer was a vegetarian and environmentalist as well. What better idealogy than environmentalism to harvest ones hatred for humanity? What better reason to wipe out millions of souls from this earth? i think atheism and environmentalism are deeply connected, it seems you would have to doubt God very much to consider the environment such an important issue and I think it's a step down a very dark road.

I defined the term correctly and ask anyone and they will agree with that definition. Many believe that recycling cans is "helping the earth" as the definition states, yet they are ignorant of the fact that eating meat and having children negates their actions. By their own definition, they are not environmentalists, they just don't know it.

diffangle
Jan 30th 2009, 08:25 PM
I should note that Hitler was said by german propaganda to be an environmentalist and a vegetarian as well

Hitler was not a vegetarian, that's a myth... so now that you know that he was a meat eater, can we equate all meat eaters with being like Hitler? ;)

Hobbes91
Feb 1st 2009, 03:54 AM
"I should note that Hitler was said by german propaganda to be an environmentalist and a vegetarian as well."

Try again.

In Dust and Ashes
Feb 1st 2009, 04:01 AM
I think you're fitting the bill for a pharisee more than anyone else you're accusing.

Pharisee:
1. a member of a Jewish sect that flourished during the 1st century b.c. and 1st century a.d. and that differed from the Sadducees chiefly in its strict observance of religious ceremonies and practices, adherence to oral laws and traditions, and belief in an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah.

In Dust and Ashes
Feb 1st 2009, 04:02 AM
glad to know you're keeping tabs on the unrighteous, though. Try tapping their phone. I hear that's fun.

diffangle
Feb 1st 2009, 01:59 PM
"I should note that Hitler was said by german propaganda to be an environmentalist and a vegetarian as well."

Try again.
If you know it is a lie then what was your point in mentioning this myth?

diffangle
Feb 1st 2009, 02:40 PM
it seems you would have to doubt God very much to consider the environment such an important issue and I think it's a step down a very dark road.


Gen 2:15 And YHWH God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

The word to keep in Hebrew is shamar meaning to keep, guard, observe, give heed, guard, keep watch and ward, protect, save life.


Proverbs 12:10 A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his animal

Lev. 25:23-24. The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.

Ezekiel 34:2-4. Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not the shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you did not take care of the flock! You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.

Ezekiel 34:10. 0 shepherds, hear the word of the Lord. This is what the sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock.

Ezekiel 34:17-18. As for you, my flock... Is it not enough for you to feed on good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?
Jer. 2:7. I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable.

Revelation 11:18. The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth.

Looks like our Creator is an environmentalist. :hmm:

diffangle
Feb 1st 2009, 03:08 PM
Many believe that recycling cans is "helping the earth" as the definition states, yet they are ignorant of the fact that eating meat and having children negates their actions.

Ftr, some of us recycle, don't eat meat, and don't have children. But for those who do recycle and eat meat... I guess in your opinion people shouldn't recycle b/c it's only one helpful thing in a line of things they could be doing? With that line of thinking, I better not try to adopt/foster a child b/c if I can't adopt/foster every child in all the orphanages then I better not even try to help one.:confused

Hobbes91
Feb 2nd 2009, 04:34 AM
I think you're fitting the bill for a pharisee more than anyone else you're accusing.

Pharisee:
1. a member of a Jewish sect that flourished during the 1st century b.c. and 1st century a.d. and that differed from the Sadducees chiefly in its strict observance of religious ceremonies and practices, adherence to oral laws and traditions, and belief in an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah.
Oh...the irony! :lol:

If you know it is a lie then what was your point in mentioning this myth?
History is very interesting and it is very relevant:

"Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress, Eva Braun… His asceticism was fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men. By this outward show of asceticism, he could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact he was remarkably self-indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic."

Clearly vegetarianism and environmentalism are seen as ideals by unGodly people.




Looks like our Creator is an environmentalist. :hmm:
You can castrate the Bible all you want, but you should realize that you are not arguing with me, but the text of the Bible itself.

Ftr, some of us recycle, don't eat meat, and don't have children. But for those who do recycle and eat meat... I guess in your opinion people shouldn't recycle b/c it's only one helpful thing in a line of things they could be doing? With that line of thinking, I better not try to adopt/foster a child b/c if I can't adopt/foster every child in all the orphanages then I better not even try to help one.:confused
Oh my...what an extreme example! Vegetarians and environmentalists do that all the time! No, you're being very irrational. a Vegetarian or environmentalist is defined by what they do to fulfill their idealogies. An "ethical vegetarian" who does not want to eat meat because they think it's unethical, but still eats chicken is not a vegetarian are they? An environmentalist who does not want to harm the earth, but still eats meat is not an environmentalist are they? If one is rationally consistent, the answer is a definitive "No" to both. You cannot call yourself an environmentalist when you're doing much more to harm the earth than helping it. It goes against the foundation of the idelaogy.

diffangle
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:27 PM
You can castrate the Bible all you want, but you should realize that you are not arguing with me, but the text of the Bible itself.
Wow incredible, I quote the Scriptures directly and you edit the Scriptures out of my quote and tell me I'm "castrating the Bible", talk about twisting. Are you able to address the verses I posted? Also can you show me in the Scriptures where He tells us to disregard and destroy His creation?

diffangle
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:46 PM
Clearly vegetarianism and environmentalism are seen as ideals by unGodly people.

I wonder if I could find examples of evil people who think meat-eating and no concern for the environment as ideal. :rolleyes: This is really a silly arguement.



Oh my...what an extreme example! Vegetarians and environmentalists do that all the time! No, you're being very irrational. a Vegetarian or environmentalist is defined by what they do to fulfill their idealogies. An "ethical vegetarian" who does not want to eat meat because they think it's unethical, but still eats chicken is not a vegetarian are they? An environmentalist who does not want to harm the earth, but still eats meat is not an environmentalist are they? If one is rationally consistent, the answer is a definitive "No" to both. You cannot call yourself an environmentalist when you're doing much more to harm the earth than helping it. It goes against the foundation of the idelaogy.
I don't get your point here... are you wanting to lump all people into one catagory? Are you saying that some or all environmentalists are hypocrites? It seems as though you're wanting to lump all together, with that same line of thinking, considering that there are some Christians that are hyocrites makes all of us hypocrites, huh? There are hypocrites everywhere, they're not limited to one group of people.

Cloudwalker
Feb 2nd 2009, 04:59 PM
Some of the posts in this thread are starting to get attacking. Plus, I'm not sure it is going anywhere. Hence, I am closing the thread. If someone wants to appeal the closing they can start a thread in Chat to the Moderators, found here (http://bibleforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=84).