How green zealots are destroying the planet!

reply to post by OEAOHOO

i am aware of all those points, and i am still not impressed.
i still think hysteria is the answer to deep ecology.
in effect the solution offered now created more problems.
the pill is worse then the disease.
but if everyone just juts back to the accepted gospel, our EARTH will be destroyed.
this is status quo at its finest.

also, i remember when GM was the accepted gospel, and all those opposing where hippies and idiots.
the tide has turned.
genetically modified is on the way out.
I was called an idiot, troll then too.
you will see I am right on this too.
within your lifetime.
try a little gaia hypothesis or deep ecology on.
maybe it is time to reevaluate or position on how to save the earth.

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by BBalazs

 

OK - here you go then.... Mr "Deep Green".

Quote 1:

"the official dogma of green zealots has been debunked in the first few pages, have they apologized yet, for their womanly hysteria?"

Green Zealots"? You must mean those "Evil" Environmental scientists huh? Trying to save the planet and all that kind of stuff - they should be ashamed of themselves!! What's with this anti-female quip?

Quote 2:

"They should apologize, and we should approach the issue of global climate change, and running out of fossils fuels with rational minds, not women induced hysteria."

Hmm..you certainly have a very low opinion of women huh? How 19th Century of you.

Quote 3:

"Telling it like it is!
Time to get rid of the watermelon people.
Green on the outside, red on the inside! "

Ahhh... so now they are not only "evil environmentalists', but "evil communists" too!! LOL!!

Quote 4:

"It is a about global warming, so you need to learn to READ better. "

And you need to learn the English language better! Most of your posts seem to be at a grade 4 level.

Quote 5:

"Sigh.
It an article, a viewpoint, by a skeptic, written by himself.
What is there not to trust?
You can argue the points made, but not reading it.
Oh well.
Sigh. "

It's an article written by a Big Oil stoolie in a Right-Wing UK rag, based on non-peer reviewed hearsay from government-controlled state media organizations (BBC and the Met) in a country currently ruled by the Ultra-Right Conservatives. So yes, I would be highly dubious, to say the least.

Quote 6:

"Please provide a CENSORSHIP LIST FOR ME.
Commie."

Name calling when people disagree with you is highly immature. As I said, you are obviously a Newbie around here - but I can tell you now, people on ATS with far more knowledge on this subject than you will rip you apart in no time. Really.

By the way - here's the UK Met Office debunking the very data your story claims they released!

www.metoffice.gov.uk...

Nice demolition job, but what's with lumping the BBC in with the right wing press, when they're its biggest enemy?

My only argument to this is; islands of trash didn't build themselves up over the years naturally, that's all us baby!

Originally posted by petrus4
I'm aware of the UN/think tanks' population reduction agenda.

We're basically looking at a psychopaths' royal rumble, here. In one corner, we have the psychopaths who are pushing for using the environment as a means of controlling people, and an excuse for said population reduction.

In the other, we have the psychopaths who want free rein to turn the entire planet into a coal fracked, oil slicked, burnt out cinder, with an atmosphere of pure methane; all in the name of profit.

edit on 4-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

I've rarely seen the true motives of both sides put in such a straitforward and logical way.....Bravo to you, sir!

THE OP'S LINKED ARTICLE IS RIFE WITH LIES THAT HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN

HAVEN'T WE GONE THROUGH THIS ALREADY?? SEVERAL TIMES??

This is a maddeningly unscientific piece of CRAP journalism designed solely to indoctrinate people into believing against their own best interests and against the best science.

CLIMATOLOGISTS/ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICISTS are the people who study climate and global warming. NOBODY ELSE IS AS QUALIFIED... and there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of any kind of conspiracy involving hundreds/thousands of scientists, and the entire body of climatology is in full consensus that AGW is absolutely real and a serious threat. Also, EVERY SINGLE REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION ON THE PLANET has PUBLICALLY STATED and signed that AGW is real and a serious threat.

ALL of the climate denial I've seen can be traced back to junk science funded by fossil fuel industry and right-wing think-tanks. I have found ZERO denier arguments that hold water... ZERO. And I've studied this quite in-depth, allowing for ANYTHING to be correct, and NONE of the denier claims are correct... yet so many people believe the filth because it's WRAPPED UP IN FEEL-GOOD CONSPIRACY BS. I'm sick of it.

This thread is a JOKE and needs to be taken off the front page.

reply to post by BBalazs


I agree totally with you their chem-trails and GMO foods are causing havoc on all life on earth. They created this mess they need to dig deep in their own pockets not ours.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


My thoughts exactly!!

Star and flag for you.

reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster


The BBC is no longer the voice of anything I'm afraid, other than the government in charge of the country who holds the purse strings. The BBC had it's collective ba*ls snipped by the Labour Party shortly after it released details of the interesting information reported to them by a British UN weapons inspector. He claimed Iraq had no WMDs - and he mysteriously turned up dead in a field shortly thereafter. Odd huh? Anyhow, the whole leadership of the BBC was fired, and reorganized. That was the day the BBC lost all it's independence and credibility.
Since then I've noticed the BBC constantly parroting the views of whoever is in power. That's all they can do if they want to survive any more.

reply to post by jimbo999

its strange that you accept no media at all, but accept hysterical climate change scientists for their word.
kind of hypocritical.
no one is denying climate change, btw.
why don't you just read the article and deny nasas findings?

reply to post by NoHierarchy


you, dear sir, have obviously not read the articles, nor my comments.
no one is denying climate change, including the author.

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

 

The BBC is no longer the voice of anything I'm afraid, other than the government in charge of the country who holds the purse strings. The BBC had it's collective ba*ls snipped by the Labour Party shortly after it released details of the interesting information reported to them by a British UN weapons inspector. He claimed Iraq had no WMDs - and he mysteriously turned up dead in a field shortly thereafter. Odd huh? Anyhow, the whole leadership of the BBC was fired, and reorganized. That was the day the BBC lost all it's independence and credibility.
Since then I've noticed the BBC constantly parroting the views of whoever is in power. That's all they can do if they want to survive any more.

The whole leadership wasn't fired, Director General Greg Dyke resigned because the BBC Trust wouldn't support him. I agree the BBC is under pressure and quite scared of the right wing press, but it's wrong to say they're a mouthpiece. They still attempt to remain independent (and still get brickbats from the right wing press for it) but their compliance is more in the passive-aggressive mode of trying to avoid a slapping. If you look for what you already believe to be true, you will always see 'evidence' that convinces you.

habitat destruction: en.wikipedia.org...
green desert habitat destruction: www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by BBalazs


This is not NASA data - it proclaims to be The UK Met - which it isn't either. It's simply Big Oil BS.

Not trying to deny GW? That's too funny - apparently everyone who studies this subject is 'hysterical' according to you... So who's the hypocrite exactly? You deny GW is occurring - yet you claim to not deny GW! lol!

reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster


The BBC bow to the people who hold the purse strings - the government.

I didn't say they cow-towed to the RW media. They cow-tow to the RW Conservative Gov. of the UK.

So there's not a whole lot of difference really, is there?

BBalas,

It would be amusing if it were not so sad. They just don't get it do they? Do they realize that funding for research has to come from somewhere. And that the results of research always benefits/agrees with the agenda of those who funded it. That the solutions presented are not solutions that can be implemented by individuals or small communities.

The only solutions presented are in the context of the corporations (the same that caused the mess and own the research and the government) solving the problems for us while taking us for more money. The same corporations that will not be held liable when it is discovered that the solutions presented are at best unhelpful, and at worst making things worse.

Really sad. But you know, I think that humans dislike logic and rational, moderate discussions. Just look at how long long religion has held its sway. Look at how quickly the institution of science has been corrupted and turned into a new religion. True spirituality and true science do not come from power hungry liars. But they do not see.


I have been able to read between the lines of what you have written and I think I understand your thinking. Deep ecology is the true way forward. I will build an Earthship and live in a self sustaining structure. I will surround myslef and my family with permacultured (forest garden-like) and wooded land. Yet those who would ridicule will continue to live in their "green" energy efficient homes constructed of newly manufactured materials. Living in a delusional structure and filled with delusions themselves.

I think that they have no idea of the Deep Ecology concept that you mentioned. They have been programmed to need a crisis, so they accept the climate change scenario as it is presented. No consideration of Gaia and her natural cycles is then considered. Do they not know, or do they not relate the collapse of civilizations such as that in the Indus valley. Did those people bring climate change upon themselves? But, they have been conditioned to believe that all of Gaia's cycles are too long for humans to feel. With this belief it is no wonder that their hubris causes them to believe that man is the culprit.


Everyone please listen. There are many reasons that we need to change the way we live and interact with the natural world. This is not new, but you act as if it is. Where were you (how did you treat the Earth) before the "climate crisis" and where would you be (How would you treat the Earth) without it?

Originally posted by ShockTruther
BBalas,

It would be amusing if it were not so sad. They just don't get it do they? Do they realize that funding for research has to come from somewhere. And that the results of research always benefits/agrees with the agenda of those who funded it. That the solutions presented are not solutions that can be implemented by individuals or small communities.

The only solutions presented are in the context of the corporations (the same that caused the mess and own the research and the government) solving the problems for us while taking us for more money. The same corporations that will not be held liable when it is discovered that the solutions presented are at best unhelpful, and at worst making things worse.

Really sad. But you know, I think that humans dislike logic and rational, moderate discussions. Just look at how long long religion has held its sway. Look at how quickly the institution of science has been corrupted and turned into a new religion. True spirituality and true science do not come from power hungry liars. But they do not see.


I have been able to read between the lines of what you have written and I think I understand your thinking. Deep ecology is the true way forward. I will build an Earthship and live in a self sustaining structure. I will surround myslef and my family with permacultured (forest garden-like) and wooded land. Yet those who would ridicule will continue to live in their "green" energy efficient homes constructed of newly manufactured materials. Living in a delusional structure and filled with delusions themselves.

I think that they have no idea of the Deep Ecology concept that you mentioned. They have been programmed to need a crisis, so they accept the climate change scenario as it is presented. No consideration of Gaia and her natural cycles is then considered. Do they not know, or do they not relate the collapse of civilizations such as that in the Indus valley. Did those people bring climate change upon themselves? But, they have been conditioned to believe that all of Gaia's cycles are too long for humans to feel. With this belief it is no wonder that their hubris causes them to believe that man is the culprit.


Everyone please listen. There are many reasons that we need to change the way we live and interact with the natural world. This is not new, but you act as if it is. Where were you (how did you treat the Earth) before the "climate crisis" and where would you be (How would you treat the Earth) without it?

Yes, yes.
This story needs to be keep alive, so that people will finally see the truth, and finally take actions and steps to actually do good.
Another day, another news story.
Glacial melt has been exxagerated, and that in itself is an exxageration, as NO melting has occurred (or verz minimal, season fluctuations), see the news story here: Glacial melt overexxagarated

Want to save the world?
Start by asking the right question!
Alarmism is not the way to go.
Start with yourself.

EDIT: the alarmist have done a lot of harm. As mentioned alarmism of overheating has lead to green desert monocultures, gmo foods (there is nothing wrong with this, but humans are not test subjects, this needs to be studied for at least 50 years) and seeds, pesticides. The list is endless. The alarmist attitude has caused poverty, starvation, habitat destruction on a grand scale. THIS IS THE FULL STORY.
Burning fossil fuels is also not good, but the alternative offered by alarmist maybe much worst.
Time to think!
This is what is obviously missing from this equation!

reply to post by BBalazs



I completely agree with alarmism leading to very poor decisions. And GMO is the perfect example. Monsanto and others promoted the idea that with changing climate and growing population, we would have a food crisis. They funded/presented scientific research to say that the best and only solution was new crops better suited for the changing environment.

Everyone jumped on the bandwagon of the "green revolution". What did we get? Crops that can be doused in insecticides/herbicides and poisoned land that can grow nothing without huge amounts of fertilizer and insecticides/herbicides. Any rational debate of the consequences was thrown out the window because we had/have to SOLVE THE GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS NOW! EMERGENCY!

Those who argued for organic ad sustainable methods were called ignorant and unscientific. They were anti-progress and did not understand the problem or the solutions necessary. And the sad thing is - THEY ARE STILL SELLING PEOPLE THE SAME LIE!!! Many people still believe that Big Ag is the only way to feed the planet... They do not see the money and influence behind the "science", only the scary picture put in front of them like blinders.

People claim to live and make their decisions based on science, but the truth is that they are ruled by their emotions. Fear being the dominant. True science listens to all ideas and does not shut out all but one, simply because the others are unpopular (ie unfunded). Unfortunately, there are very few people who actually understand science (but that doesn't stop them from talking as if they have a clue), and of those that do, so many are institutionalized, or willing to do anything for money. True science is admitting when you don't know everything. True science has no allegiance to institution or ideal. True science is done for the pursuit of knowledge, not the pursuit of money.

reply to post by ShockTruther


check out aquaponics, aka hydroponics.
self sustaining agricultural systems.
they can NOW be made in large, agriculturally, industrial sized complexes.
environmentally friendly, no pesticides or fertilizers needed.
off course they are marked as nuts, hobbyist or unscientific.
to think that all out FOOD could be safe and environmentally friendly!
including fish, and possibly livestock!
amazing isn't it?

Also, the current model depletes nutrient values of plants. anyone can look up, how up to 90% of the nutrient found in plants have been depleted. Can hardly be called food now, can it?
Off course whilst everyone is pursuing the global climate warming hysteria, our earth is gently raped.
Fossil fusel are bad, but we have an environmental catasthrope already unfolding.
Open your eyes people!

To push these old outdated models, that deplete and rape the earth, and call everyone else a climate denier is just wrong.
Its brainwashing.

Good post!!

Climate change extremist are dangerous. They seek to use climate change to control human behavior in the name of saving the planet.

reply to post by neoholographic



The problem is not controlling human behavior - this is done and has been done ever since the inception of government. Ever since we formed tribes and communities. It is necessary that we have rules to live by. However, acceptable behaviors should be determined and approved by the society as whole, not a few powerful institutions/companies.

Manipulating human behavior by giving the impression of impending doom with only one recourse (provided by the same companies that will profit from said solutions...), this is the problem. There is no real education about the problems we face (because the research that shows how badly we're being poisoned by modern companies is repressed - bad for the bottom line). Without real education the society (the population as a whole) cannot make good decisions.

As it is we are presented with the big, scary problem. We are not told all the details. And we are given a very limited range of solutions. Then the solutions are chosen for us and instituted. Society really has no say in the matter, they only think they do.

Most people think they have a say, because they either support a regulation or they don't. Voting or agreeing with either Yes or No is not a real choice. There should be several options on the table, but instead we are held hostage by either approving the 'single' solution presented or being guilty for not doing anything. We are given the option to approve, but we have no say in the determination of "solutions". Without freedom of information and proper education there is only the illusion of free choice.