Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The humorous and sad issue of environmentalism.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The humorous and sad issue of environmentalism.

    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/...cle5489134.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!

    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.
    13Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. 1 Corinthians

  • #2
    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


    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.
    As thy days, so shall thy strength be - Deuteronomy 33:25

    Comment


    • #3
      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=-zoDL...eature=related
      Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Hobbes91 View Post
        "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."
        "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          Thus says YHWH, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls.
          -Jeremiah 6:16

          Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. - Matthew 11:29

          Comment


          • #6
            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.
            "I'm thinking of starting my own talk radio show. I'll spout simplistic opinions for hours on end, ridicule anyone who disagrees with me, and generally foster divisiveness, cynicism, and a lower level of public dialog! Imagine getting PAID to act like a six-year-old!"

            -Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: Theres Treasure Everywhere p. 138

            Comment


            • #7
              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:
              Originally posted by In Dust and Ashes View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Angyl View Post
                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.
                "I'm thinking of starting my own talk radio show. I'll spout simplistic opinions for hours on end, ridicule anyone who disagrees with me, and generally foster divisiveness, cynicism, and a lower level of public dialog! Imagine getting PAID to act like a six-year-old!"

                -Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: Theres Treasure Everywhere p. 138

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by diffangle View Post
                  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.
                  Originally posted by In Dust and Ashes View Post
                  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.

                  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.
                  13Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. 1 Corinthians

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Environmentalism? I prefer the term 'Creation Care'.
                    As thy days, so shall thy strength be - Deuteronomy 33:25

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.
                      "I'm thinking of starting my own talk radio show. I'll spout simplistic opinions for hours on end, ridicule anyone who disagrees with me, and generally foster divisiveness, cynicism, and a lower level of public dialog! Imagine getting PAID to act like a six-year-old!"

                      -Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: Theres Treasure Everywhere p. 138

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by In Dust and Ashes View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DaniHansen View Post
                          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.
                          "I'm thinking of starting my own talk radio show. I'll spout simplistic opinions for hours on end, ridicule anyone who disagrees with me, and generally foster divisiveness, cynicism, and a lower level of public dialog! Imagine getting PAID to act like a six-year-old!"

                          -Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: Theres Treasure Everywhere p. 138

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by In Dust and Ashes View Post
                            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/definit...vironmentalist
                            environmentalist Anoun
                            1 environmentalist, 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.
                            13Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. 1 Corinthians

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Hobbes91 View Post
                              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.
                              "I'm thinking of starting my own talk radio show. I'll spout simplistic opinions for hours on end, ridicule anyone who disagrees with me, and generally foster divisiveness, cynicism, and a lower level of public dialog! Imagine getting PAID to act like a six-year-old!"

                              -Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: Theres Treasure Everywhere p. 138

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X