On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 09:34:40PM -0400, Norb wrote:
> <snip>
> > Like the tree-huggers and animal-rights people. Not the
> > same agenda, but if their agendas were enacted, we'd end up in the same
> > place-- eating St. Augustine grass and living in tents.
> </snip>
>
> I think you overstate it a bit. And this is as opposed to...
>
> <snip>
> > ...the apathetic people of the world whole don't pull
> > their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that something bad
> > is happening.
> >
>
> Hmm... look in a mirror lately?
>
> Perhaps some of those "tree huggers" have something going. YOu know,
> this entire "Impending ecological doom" they've been warning us about
> (and that "right-winged" people have been laughing at and downplaying)
> is comming to fruition. Yeah, they have their nut-jobs, but name one
> group that doesn't? Fringes do not correctly characterize and agenda.
> You should know that as well as anyone. Then again, maybe the do (Gw
> Bush, Chenney, Robertson, Lott, Limbaugh...).
>
> I know it's way off of subject, but next time you decide to dump knee
> high levels of BS, be careful what grounds you tread on - the dump might
> rightfully fall back on you.
>
> By the way, if this is gonna start another thread, just remame it, will
> y'all? I didn't write this to start an argument, but rather to stand up
> to unfair characterization. Are conservatives characterized by men like
> Koresh? Are patriots characterized by men like McVeigh? Think before you
> spew.
>
You're not following the actions of your compatriots closely. Let's just
stick to the tree huggers. These are the same people who have blocked
the building of power plants in California for ten years, while the
state's population doubled. These are the same people who have blocked
drilling off Florida's coast. Do you know how many wells are out in the
Gulf already? When was the last time you heard of a major spill from one
of them? Do you realize how close you'd have to be to a well in the Gulf
to even see it over the horizon? These are the same people who cut down
trees in California for some ungodly environmental reason.
But okay, let's just imagine that the environmental movement _doesn't_
have more than its share of nut jobs. So what precisely is the end
result of all this environmentalism? Precisely. Not some pie-in-the-sky
nebulous utopian statement. Something that precisely defines what is and
what isn't acceptable use of the environment, and an acceptable
trade-off between progress (as defined by the sadly misguided few of us
who believe that the environment is here to serve us) and environmental
protection.
You're not going to find one, because there isn't one. If there were,
they'd be out of business. If they can keep redefining the goals and
purposes, they can continue to push their agenda forever. And I submit
to you that the end result of this is precisely what I stated,
regardless of the rhetoric of the environmentalists. (And by the way,
this is the M.O. of all the "fringe" groups. This allows them to
continue to operate indefinitely.)
As for the "impending ecological doom", I've been listening to this
flotsam since before you were born, and not a bit of it has yet to
materialize. You probably don't remember the "Limits To Growth" put out
by the Club Of Rome way back when. What disasters that predicted. We
were going to run out of pretty much every natural resource by the year
2000, and these guys had about a 30 year window in which to be proven
right. Not a bit of it happened. One of the primary guys in the "global
warming" movement used to be in the "global cooling" camp. Credibility?
Nah.
And oh by the way, you know all those "scientists" running around
telling us about the impending doom of "global warming". You never see
the other scientists who argue against this point. Why? Not popular.
Doesn't fit the environmentalist manifesto. Like the media, scientific
journals and university publications have a decidedly left tilt to them.
Much research is sponsored by universities, and universities are
probably the largest concentration of liberals on the planet (except for
Europe). Then years later, the kids finally grow up and realize that
that crap they were spouting at university was just that. Remember the
60's? Oh that's right. Those people are all stock brokers now.
Do you realize that nature itself produces more greenhouses gasses than
all the activities of Man combined?
There may in fact be global warming occurring. However, considering that
Man has been measuring these things for mere decades, it's complete junk
science to conclude that therefore this is the result of the activities
of Man. It's impossible to accurately make such a statement. No science
has yet proven this. Nor will it. The Earth, bless her heart, goes
through cycles all the time, without the slightest consultation with
Man.
And by the way, I have a background in mathematics and science, and I
don't mean computer science. I'm weak on art, not science. When I'm
spouting bovine excrement, it will be abundantly clear. This is not one
of those times.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:23:35 EDT