Can you be an “environmentalist” or be concerned with a healthy natural environment and reject the idea of MAN MADE global warming or climate change?
If no then why not?
If yes what do you think a proper and balanced view of mans roll within the natural world looks like and/or consists of?
As an Amazon Associate I Earn from Qualifying Purchases
I can because there is no convincing evidence being presented to me that man caused climate changes are occurring.
Look at the current volcanic activity in relation to human released carbon dioxide and tell me how we are anywhere near as significantly culpable as the volcano’s are.
That’s just one comparison that can be made, there are other equally significant ones.
I just checked the USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory site. Volcanos produce about one percent, 1%, of the carbon dioxide spewed into the environment by human activity. It is volcanic dust blown into the atmosphere that causes events like “the year without a summer” in the 1800s when there was snow every month of the year. If you consider the millions of acres of forest destroyed every year, the millions upon millions of tons of top soil lost to erosion by wind and water, the release of manmade chemicals into our air and water, and all the other environmentally destructive things we humans do, I believe there is a possibility of our having a measurable effect on the planet. Most climatologists think we are a major player in climate change/warming though the case has been made that variations in solar output, changes in the planet’s orbit and tilt may be the heavy hitters.
Absolutely. Adopt the campers creed and leave as small a footprint as possible. Demand that goods be built for maximum life and serviceability from appliances to computers, cars and buildings. Mandate the use of things like road surfaces that lat 100 years, fuel delivery systems that allow 100 mpg etc. In short, be smart! If you live in tornado alley build homes and businesses underground as much as possible with vast park lands above. If you live in flood zones build above the maximum flood level and turn the waterfront into public space.
Common sense moves like this will eliminate the need for extremism in environmental matters. Humans do everything back asswards. We piss away wealth buying things from “green manufactures” that are designed to fail and in the process we end up wasting enormous resources. I’d gladly buy a refrigerator at three or four times the current price if it would last my entire life or longer.
Things like this are only possible though when you eliminate central bankers. As long as they rule over us, profit will trump quality of life and preservation of planet and environment.
Couldn’t agree more on the central bank issue and in fact on everything you wrote here. The “camper’s creed” is a worthy one and not all that difficult to implement in one’s own everyday life.
I live a very small footprint life and am at best highly skeptical of the climate change hype. I don’t make a religion out of the way I live, I simply live the way I do because it seems sensible, cost-effective and contributes to maintaining an environment I find pleasing and hope to preserve for my posterity.
As for mandating such things as road surface longevity, more efficient fuel delivery systems, too far beyond the reach of an individual, might be possible with a large enough group determined to advance the program.
Regarding long lasting roads and fuel delivery systems, good roads are critical infrastructure that benefits everyone. We already pay enough tax to afford them if we can figure out how to eliminate the graft and corruption. Fuel (oil) should be managed/owned by the public for the benefit of all instead of for the greed of the oil companies. I lived in Europe for eight years and they have efficient, far reaching and very affordable public transport systems that were easy and pleasurable to use. There’s no reason we can’t have that here.
The first freezer I ever bought in 1972 is still working!!
The car I bought in 2010 is just about toast!!!
Absolutely. The enviro-nuts have done a marvelous job of tying the global warming myth to environmental stewardship. Co2 is a piss-poor greenhouse gas and doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. In fact, the whole man-made GW hypothesis is wrong, and has it exactly backwards – we should *encourage* a slow rise in CO2, not curse it. Co2 is plant food! It is a vital part of all ecosystems, and by adding more, we can make the Earth much greener, as it has always been, historically speaking. The last several million years of ice age cycles have left the atmosphere starved of CO2. Maybe its time to reverse that. Humans have done plenty of environmental damage, but we can adapt and use our big-brains to fix much of that, and actually make things better, in the long-run.
It just seems that everyone that is on the man caused side has an agenda and is without reason.
Once you establish in any argument or discussion that you believe in climate change, but not man caused, they stop, look at you and say, I can’t believe…….blah blah blah. Any chance at a rational exchange of ideas is gone because you are a denier and now despised.
Obviously only stricter government regulations and carbon taxes can save the world, run by the same people who have fucked us over and lied to us time and time again in charge of course.
I’ll echo what has been said above, recycle, LED lights, etc, everyone can do something small that will have a larger impact collectively.
Once again the claim that only fix is further meddling is beyond hubris.
Do we affect the planet? Of course. Are humans willing to stop doing the things we seem to have become dependent upon in order to make our contribution neutral?
No.
So what’s the point of a conversation? And further, an imposed tax?
This is simply another mechanism for control and dominion over other human beings via the State.
Yes, and for all reasons stated in comments. I do object to CO2 being abused as an Environmental demon. It is ridiculous.
It is good that government has accomplished clean-up of water and air. CO2 is not involved with either.
Yes, as a matter of fact, this would be better environmentally, as funds could be better used in actual help of the environment, instead of wasting funds on trying to control climate change; which is arguably something we can’t control anyway (except in our homes!). To watch a tragedy unfold, look at the time line of the Sierra Club and how the old guard was pushed out, in favor of the new generation of SJW’s, who were smitten with AGW.
Of course, it should be everyone’s responsibility to care about the environment. But it should with good science and within the law of the constitution.
Why is climate change bad? Do these idiots think that they can stop the change? Nature always waxes and wanes, it is the natural way. It is total hubris for man to think he can control the planet. Climate change is real, but global warming due to mankind is bunk. Real scientists will admit to you that they do not understand the self-regulating processes of our planet. I take comfort in the fact that God promised us that he would not destroy the world with water again. I take comfort from my belief that God created the universe and will destroy this planet when his plans come to fruition. Until then we should simply be good stewards as He asked us to. I am a Christian and I do not subscribe to the new religion of Environmentalism. If more of the enviro-weenies were Christians, they would not be desperate enviro-nuts.
The “campers creed” is equilivant to “the golden rule”, I don’t want you shitting in my yard so I won’t shit in your yard. A very simple rule taught but not learned since man has populated this blue speck.
NY Times blames winter chill on GloBull Warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/science/feeling-a-chill-blame-the-polar-vortex-and-global-warming.html
Wonder how many Registered Democrats swallow that one.
Registered? All of them.
Absolutely. One of the things that pisses me off the most about the anthropogenic global warming/climate change scam is that it distracts everyone from the real pollution problems.
Urban Heat Islands probably heat the air more than cars; they certainly have a greater effect on rainfall. Most telling is deep ocean water often being hotter than the surface water. But whatever the cause(s) and effects, people will die in the Urban Jungles first and it won’t be CO2 killing them.
…environmentalism is communistic in nature and has always been about the forced confiscation of private property “for the public good”.
Environmentalists almost never use their own money to take private property out of circulation, and instead, rely on the force of government to do their dirty work for them…look at the hoops developers have to go through, in order to get their projects approved…
If environmentalists had their way, approximately 90% of humanity would be eliminated, environmentalists seeing humanity as a “pestilence”, while the remaining 10% would be walled-off in soviet-style high-rise apartments, relegated to travel by bus, train or bicycle.
Privately-owned cars would only be available to the “anointed” environmentalists who self-appoint themselves as “stewards of the earth” and would be the only “humans” allowed in the pristine wilderness areas (Agenda 21). Of course, their country “dachas” would be part of their “stewardship”.
Environmentalists are like watermelons–“green” on the outside, and “red” (communist) on the inside.
I, for one, have NO USE for these tofu-eating, prius-driving, birkenstock-wearing, limp-wristed poor excuses for human beings.
I suggest that these environmentalists eliminate themselves FIRST.
I CHEER when I hear of a “greenpeace” boat being boarded for interfering with lawful commerce, as well as seeing a “greenpeace” boat being blown out of the water…
Someone ought to tell the SUV drivers on the other planets that they are responsible for “globull warming” as well…