"If global warming is CO based, should be trying to stop volcanoes..."

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
There are a hundred rabbit trails in this post, that I could go down, but I will stick with the arrogance of the human, in the big scheme of things.

On second thought, I wil chase rabbits.

Let's look at the self destructive attitude of the environmentalists. In today's world, that doesn't mean a farmer who has figured out the wisdom of contour plowing and crop rotation.

These people are willing to cut their noses off, to spite their faces. Very, very few of the people insisting that we return to some medevial stage of existence, could or would last a week, under the conditions, which they desire to foist upon the rest of us.

Let's look at one example. In the 30's, men with vision decided to use our natural resources for our advantage....Huge dams were constructed, controlling water flow, for the purpose of power production and storage of a valuable resource. Out of that, we got practically free electricity and the ability to turn rich desert soil into fertile farmland. Land which has produced bumper crops at rock bottom prices, for those people who think that food comes from the grocery store.

Along comes a bunch of self righteous, [sentient] arrogant environmentalists, who's real agenda is to destroy capitalism, at all costs, and, through legislation, are able to get the irrigation water shut off to many farms in the California Central Valley.....Why? Some little backwater minnow called the Delta Smelt.. A 2" minnow, which serves the lower end of the food chain.

Now, thousands of acres of good farmland sit idle, thousands of farm workers out of a job, and towns disappearing, for lack of commerce.

The fish lives, the people die.....HOOOORAY!!!!! Mission accomplished......Yet, you say that you are sentient about the condition of the earth, because you'd like to stick around a while...Hard to do that, without food.

As George Carlin pointed out, they really don't care about the trash. They just like their area to be clean and pristine....Go ahead, get your grapes from Chile or Mexico. Somehow, I doubt if they are worried about the Delta Smelt.

I agreed what you said, the environmentalist are very self-centered people, and are willing to throw humanity under the bus for their own purposes.
 
Royd,

I work with food producers and develope better methods and products. Many of those producers are also on the intensive end in being of larger scale and using lots of chemicals in their management regimens. I am also concerned about the environment and how production effects the environment. Many, but not all producers, are also concerned about what they will be leaving behind for those inheriting their operations.

At no point do those interested in conserving environment speak of cutting off food supply. That is fear mongering used by parties trying to protect methods they know or consider to be profitable. Those same parties would cutoff their or anyone elses nose to ensure they can continue making their profits. I consider you to be fear mongering which insults the intelligence of those your are trying to sway.


Parties have vested interest in both sides of arguement and the pillagers actually have the largest resource base for the politics end.
 
Quote:
Are you saying that Paul Rodriquez, a comedian and a large California farmer, who has changed politcal parties, due to the fact that he can no longer farm, due to silly regulations, is also a scare mongerer?...Or are you saying that the story about the Delta Smelt is just made up by the right wing media, just to give environmentalists a black eye?
 
Quote:
Are you saying that Paul Rodriquez, a comedian and a large California farmer, who has changed politcal parties, due to the fact that he can no longer farm, due to silly regulations, is also a scare mongerer?...Or are you saying that the story about the Delta Smelt is just made up by the right wing media, just to give environmentalists a black eye?

I am addressing one problem at a time. You are a fear mongerer that is not the source of any facts. You are simply being a spin doctor using info acquired from others and presenting in light that suits your interest. There are lots of issues just like you list, bring those up as well.
 
Quote:
As a scientist, I have had the privilege of reading papers on both sides of this debate, there are hundreds of studies that support both angles. However, it has been my experience, that those with the most to gain(profit) produce studies that at hard or impossible to duplicate, thereby leaving the study questionable. Most, but certainly not all, of the studies supporting the human affect on climate change are done with no tangible profit in mind. With this said, I tend to go with warming as being exacerbated by more human activities then there once was. This is not saying that all the warming is human related and that the earth would not be going in this direction all by its self. Just that we as humans have accelerated the process.

As for George Carlan, he was funny and that is all. I would be a laughing stock if my knowledge and quotes came from a high school drop out and a cocaine addict. Royd, I would seriously reconsider where you get your information if you would like people to believe you are more then just a fear monger.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
As a scientist, I have had the privilege of reading papers on both sides of this debate. With this said, I tend to go with warming as being exacerbated by more human activities then there once was. This is not saying that all the warming is human related and that the earth would not be going in this direction all by its self. Just that we as humans have accelerated the process.

As for George Carlan, he was funny and that is all. I would be a laughing stock if my knowledge and quotes came from a high school drop out and a cocaine addict. Royd, I would seriously reconsider where you get your information if you would like people to believe you are more then just a fear monger.

The problem here is that the people on both sides of this (and some other unresolvable issues) have two different ways of "knowing." One camp begins with ignorance, seeks evidence in the natural world, and draws conclusions. The other camp has been told that they already have all the answers, seeks only evidence that confirms their answers, and dismisses any that contradict what they "know" to be true. As such, no amount of evidence from the former will ever satisfy the latter.

hmm.png
 
Quote:
As a scientist, I have had the privilege of reading papers on both sides of this debate. With this said, I tend to go with warming as being exacerbated by more human activities then there once was. This is not saying that all the warming is human related and that the earth would not be going in this direction all by its self. Just that we as humans have accelerated the process.

As for George Carlan, he was funny and that is all. I would be a laughing stock if my knowledge and quotes came from a high school drop out and a cocaine addict. Royd, I would seriously reconsider where you get your information if you would like people to believe you are more then just a fear monger.

The problem here is that the people on both sides of this (and some other unresolvable issues) have two different ways of "knowing." One camp begins with ignorance, seeks evidence in the natural world, and draws conclusions. The other camp has been told that they already have all the answers, seeks only evidence that confirms their answers, and dismisses any that contradict what they "know" to be true. As such, no amount of evidence from the former will ever satisfy the latter.

hmm.png


You are correct. I find it interesting that the camp that all ready has all the answers is also the camp that does not want any more studies conducted. Are they afraid their theories will be proven incorrect? I suppose ignorance is bliss!

My belief is science is in continual motion, and what may have been applicable to the environment 50 years ago may not apply on the same level in today's ever changing world. There are very few Laws, so continual study of what is going around us is necessary to understand what is happening to our world.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
The problem here is that the people on both sides of this (and some other unresolvable issues) have two different ways of "knowing." One camp begins with ignorance, seeks evidence in the natural world, and draws conclusions. The other camp has been told that they already have all the answers, seeks only evidence that confirms their answers, and dismisses any that contradict what they "know" to be true. As such, no amount of evidence from the former will ever satisfy the latter.

hmm.png


You are correct. I find it interesting that the camp that all ready has all the answers is also the camp that does not want any more studies conducted. Are they afraid their theories will be proven incorrect? I suppose ignorance is bliss!

My belief is science is in continual motion, and what may have been applicable to the environment 50 years ago may not apply on the same level in today's ever changing world. There are very few Laws, so continual study of what is going around us is necessary to understand what is happening to our world.

What's even more interesting is that the camp which already has the answers and doesn't want any more studies collected is thinking somehow that their opinion is equally valid by creating a false dichotomy of the situation. "I know it in my gut" carries as much weight as "20 years of independent research has found..."

OK, not "interesting" so much as "amusing."

roll.png
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom