Why are so many ATS'ers "anti-Environmentalist?"

I find you get three types of Climate change deniers...

I find that there is one kind of Climate change advocate. The people that seem to see a climate change and assume that humans are causing it.

Climate change is a normal natural thing. The earth's climate is supposed to change, I think that the change is probably one of the biggest influence in evolution.

You can not ignore global data that does not support your theory and then take specific examples and say that they prove global climate change. Or I guess you can, but it makes you wrong.

The funny thing is, no one needs a scary doomsday theory to force us into taking better care of the planet. Instead of spending billions on advertising saying we are destroying the planet spend those billions on greener economically equivalent choices. I have enough faith in my fellow man that we would choose the greener alternatives of our own free will.

reply to post by Histopherness


In 2007 an IPCC report, supported by over 2500 scientists in over a hundred different countries, said that human caused global warming was "Very Likely"

They also said that "Very likely" translates to a 90% probability.

But i guess the anti-GW people posting here know more than 2500 scientist from all over the world!


news.nationalgeographic.com...

Of course humans cause Global Warming, Global Warming is the theory due the increased burning of fossil fuels and the associated raise in carbon in the atmosphere the over-all temperature of the planet is supposed to increase. Seeing as NONE that is right NONE of the predicted temperature increases have come to pass. How long have we worked with this theory now, 30+ years? If you ask scientist if they believe we are responsible for global warming they pretty much will all agree because they very term is intimately connected to the burning of fossil fuels and we are the species that does that. Take the term away and have them study just the hard data about global temperatures and I bet you find far fewer scientist agree.

It is like saying that humans are responsible for traffic jams; we are, but then start using the term Traffic Jam to refer to a decrease in migration patterns. The very term has deep connections to a human caused event and so many people would jump at the belief we caused the decrease in migrations and actually see patterns in the data because they expect to. Doesn't make it true.

Sadly I believe semantics are seriously influencing peoples beliefs on this subject and they are not seeing the data objectively.

reply to post by Histopherness


Dam... i always allow myself to get caught up in this argument even though i promised myself i would stay away. It feels like i'm hitting my head against a brick wall...

Of course humans cause Global Warming, Global Warming is the theory due the increased burning of fossil fuels and the associated raise in carbon in the atmosphere the over-all temperature of the planet is supposed to increase.

The scientists are not saying "if the GW theory is true then humans are the cause" They are saying the planet IS getting warmer and this is due to human activity!!!!

Please don’t take this the wrong way, because i mean no offence, but i really cannot take your word (or anyone else's word for that matter) over that of 2500 different scientist.

I am going to respectfully withdraw from this debate because it drives me nuts

But if any of you get a chance check out the BBC2 documentary Earth – The Climate Wars.

It’s a 3 part documentary but the second part was the most interesting for me. It shows how the sceptics tried to pick apart the GW theory in the 90's with arguments such as the urban heat island effect and the medieval warming period argument. These arguments are still thrown around today on forums but where proved incorrect and/or irrelevant years ago.

Anyway... if you get a chance check it out.

Oh... one last thing... I’ve often seen people pulled up on this site regarding bad grammar, typos and such... please people get over yourselves. If you can understand the point the person is making, but there are one or two spelling mistakes, can it not be overlooked?? To point out these mistakes just make you look like a smug SOB and does not really add to the debate. I was a total failure at school due to massive family issues. I left school with nothing. So yes, like some others on here, my grammar is not the best. That does not make me thick, nor does it reduce the validity of any comments i make. To say that it does is nothing but academic snobbery.

Thanks.

I love nature. I grew up camping in Montana, British Columbia and Washington for a good part of my childhood and on a year round basis. I love nature and need to be in nature. I'm as opposed to the global polluters as anyone. I'm very skeptical of "Global Warming" tied to man made causes. When the earth gets sick enough it will flush out the toxins just like a human would. If those toxins are man made they will be removed. But it's pretty well established that the solar system is experiencing the same phenomenon not just earth. It's also pretty clear and very predictable that scams will be created to make money off of any event possible and to subjugate humanity. I'm not anti-environment myself, I'm anti-lies and manipulations that exaggerate and misrepresent the subject while repressing the solutions such as alternative energies.

reply to post by Muckster


I understand your frustration entirely. It is very hard when you are sure you are right, when you have evidence, and people don't listen. I am not in the boat that is saying that the scientist are wrong. They may be very well right. I am in the boat that is saying all this evidence that I see is cirumstantial. Taking in the bigger picture; and the globe is the bigger picture, the data doesn't prove anything.

We may only be a small part of a problem, or maybe there is no problem, or maybe we don't even understand what the problem is. But to suggest that the globe is getting warmer and we are to blame without taking into account that the globe cyclically has warm periods or that by the mathematical models of carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect the planet should be lots warmer then it is... well you can see how I can not just accept what a panel is telling me; even if it has 2500 scientist on it. I expect that if something is to be purported as established fact that it is then; in fact, FACT.

reply to post by Histopherness


HAHA I’ve broken my promise to quit this thread already

I do not agree with what you say... however, i have given you a star because i respect your opinion and appreciate the manner in which your reply was written.

Too many people seem to want to jump down each other’s throats if they have different opinions so it is refreshing to see someone be adult about differences and construct a polite reply. Thanks Histopherness

reply to post by Muckster


Thank you

I love to debate. I find it an excellent way to see other points of view as well as learn several things that I might never have thought to research on my own. I have even been known to take a stance I do not believe in just because no one else was willing to do it.

I think in the end we will find that current climate issues were due to humans exacerbating a naturally occuring warm cycle. If anyone was interested in my actual thoughts on the matter.

2500 scientists signed on based on the data provided. Unfortunately, there is a substantial amount of data included in the IPCC report which is flawed (some possibly made up)-

www.businessandmedia.org...

Feel free to discredit the author, as that's usually the response. Some people refuse to accept 2+2=5.

Meanwhile, the true pursuit of climate change churns on and on...

www.alertnet.org...

Recycling yes.

Care in disposing of toxic waste yes.

Using the most environmentally sound methods in our industry yes.

Responsible use of renewable resources yes.

Cap and Trade NO!

Needless destruction of the Worlds economy (more than has already happened) to enrich the owners of companies that stand to make billions (Al Gore) NO!

Destroying US business and industry while turning a blind eye to the real problems in China and Third World countries NO!

Labeling people anti-environment because they are pragmatic and believe the Human animal has the right to exist NO!

The truth lies in the middle somewhere as it always does. Extremists are always wrong as it is their nature to be so. They just want to force their wills on others regardless of the truth of their cause.

Originally posted by silent thunder
Some of the brightest minds here are willing to look behind the curtain on so many problems...I've seen creative thinking and poking and prodding at the real sources of power that gives me hope for humanity...I've read brilliant exposes of corrupt power structures or the general dirty tricks that our gov't is up to...

...and yet, when the topic of the "fragile earth" comes up, its like you can almost see the mental gates slamming shut: "Global warming is a fraud; its been cooked up by Al Gore to sell movies dontcha know." COME ON HERE PEOPLE OUR PLANET IS DYING! ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE, every time you look at a row of plastic spinners on a used-car lot or shovel another mouthfull of "chow" that would have been classified as dogfood 20 years ago...Why can't more of the bright, perceptive people who see behind so many other lies and scams get untangled from the lie that "everythin's OK on the environmental front?"

[edit on 7/5/09 by silent thunder]

Can you not see the dirty PSYCHOLOGICAL tricks that the GW's Agenda got enviornmentalists to buy hook line and sinker.....have you ever given careful .....critical thought about this....seriously

They used enviornmentalists to pound the pavement for their Agenda.....they understand that enviornmentalists feel passionately about the planet and they USED those strong emotions for their own agenda...enviornmentalists deep down REALIZE that GW is too big of an issue not to have ON THEIR SIDE.....to get the leverage to actually effect change in the enviornement......they were blinded by hope and never took the time to realize they were being played ....or quite possibly they were willing to not think about this because enviornmental awareness was raised

The big question i have for the strong enviornmental people is this.....Would you still support any type of GW plans even if you knew the CO2 and warming link were likely fradulent and may cause unnecessary tax's and even allow the biggest polluters to get away (military).....because it raises awareness of the enviornment and causes some minor but clearly positive changes.......think about it please

i come in peace lol

p.s good post blaine

[edit on 6-7-2009 by cpdaman]

i have little to add to this forum other then my own diatribe. now-a-days, facts can be found 10,000,000-fold, in any size & shape we have the patience and savvy to google for.

this here is full-on opinion.

so here i go;

this is a conspiracy web-site, so by its very nature, it questions any and every source of information that comes to us, expecially via the media and other populist sources. i mean, this place even questions the questions. that is why we come here.

for that reason, i respect and understand the questions regarding our proposed solutions to the "global warming" version of an envriornmental holicaust. 'cap & trade' seeming to be the most dubious at the moment.

i even question whether or not global warming is enviornmental issue #1.
(i do believe Global Warming is a misnomer. Global Climate Change seems to more accurately describe the current phenonemon).

As Amagnon posted earlier in this thread, the enviornmental issues facing this world seem to be several.


however, what irks me is a sense of indulgent-ignorance i get from many who abrubtly shirk the idea that the earth is in rather dire-straits, and that the current exploits of our species are primarily to blaim.

the most common retorts to this notion seem to be:

1) where is the proof?

2) the notion itself is far too radical, too hippie, too leftist, too tree-huggie

3) why should i care?



whether one believes that the world is a single living organism (the gaia principle), or simply that it is a venue for we humans to play out our lives,
we (like most animals of sense) should know that it is not wise to *poop* where we sleep.

and we have seriously *pooped* up this world something awful.

the list of specifics is endless, and there are thousands of details to check out. once again, Agagnon's list is a good place to start.



our current society has a long-term memory issue. we are transfixed with the "bright-shiny-gimme-now" model.

if we had the wisdom to gander at the big picture, both chronologically and enviornmentally, the reality becomes... well rather frightening.

this isn't alarmist. this is fact. i mean, try going for a dip in the lower mississipi.

perhaps that is why so many folk do not wish to look at the reality of what is going on... because once recognized, the solutions also become rather frightening.

it becomes clear that things like "cap & trade" and hydro cars are NOT real solutions. they are either new means to milk us for $$$, or band-aides meant to assauge the issue, without doing anything truly about it.

the solution seems to be that there can be little less then a radical alteration of our life style.

we must greatly reduce ourselves from our dependance upon the engines and the machines that govern our existance. we have sold our future for an immediate gratification.

this is not doom saying. this is the law of consequence.

we have danced the dance. spun this world silly with our day-glo porn visions, our pixelated fantasies, our myriad of gadgets to preoccupy us in every conceivable way.

it's only fair that we pay the piper.

There are many replies and lots of banter, but only one real truth to the OP's question.

Anti-Environmentalists are anti-cap and trade.

It doesn't matter how real or true human caused global warming is.

It doesn't matter how much proof or credible study occurs to support global warming.

It doesn't matter how many scientists that spend their lives studying the environment say.

It doesn't matter how many observers, witnesses, and industry insiders say that we are causing a global climate change.



It all comes down to the fear of paying another tax.

They're not concerned about the Earth, about future generations, or about our ecosystem as a whole.

They just fear a tax. That's all. And as you can see they will jump through hoops of fire and twist pretty pretzels of logic to make it seem like the truth that's staring us all in the face really isn't, because they can find a web site somewhere on the internet that supports them.

Well, I shouldn't say they aren't concerned about the Earth, etc. They are just far more concerned about a tax and how that will affect their wallet in the short term.

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by Symbiote

Originally posted by mental modulator
... there is no room for consensus when it come to politicized issues.
Its my way or no way...

CONSENSUS
–noun, plural -sus⋅es.
1. majority of opinion.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

America's declining literacy rate disturbs me.And my mother looks and smells like a goat what should I do mental modulator?

Thanks! You should let her be free to graze and use her milk on your cereal!

[edit on 6-7-2009 by mental modulator]

You are an angry person... you also misquoted Symbiote and added to their above text! Shame on you!

Throwing a tempatrantrum only shows immaturity, consider your statements ... take a walk and clear your head before posting in the future... you will feel better about it!

Remember... a clear head has clear thoughts!

Ciao!



[edit on 03/31/2009 by rgseymour]

So, because we don't fall for the Global Warming hoax we are anti-environmentalists?....

If you are talking about the environmentalists who make a tree out of a small splint, yes, many of us are "anti-environmentalists"...

If you are talking about the "environmentalists" who want to bash and blame the west, and want the west to pay for the rest of the world over a PERFECTLY SAFE GAS, that is CO2, then yes, many of us are "anti-environmentalists"....

If you are talking about the "environmentalists" who bash and blame the west, yet don't demand anything of China, Russia, India, Brazil, etc, then yes we are "anti-environmentalists"....

If you are talking about the "environmentalists" who want CHANGE NOW, to other forms of energy which are not proven to be able to replace carbon-based power sources, including natural gas, and coal, then yes we are "anti-environmentalists"...

If you are talking about the "environmentalists" who keep demanding for Kyoto, or some other similar treaty which demands everything, including our eyebrows, from the west, and allows the east, such as China, Russia, India, and some other countries to not only keep emitting CO2, but to increase their emissions as much as they want, then yes, we are "anti-environmentalists"....

But if you are talking about "environmentalists" who actually know what they are talking about, and want the plastic islands in the Pacific ocean to be cleaned up.
If those "environmentalists" are asking for countries which have a TOTAL disregard over the environment such as China, Russia, Venezuela, India, and others to clean up their acts, and stop demanding the west to pay for the mess up they created themselves.
If those "environmentalists" are asking for "COMPANIES" and not the tax-payer, to clean up all the mess they create, all the toxic waste they release, etc to be cleaned up by these companies.
If you are talking about the "environmentlaists" who are not DEMANDING "change" NOW, and understand that it will take time to actually come up with an efficient renewable power source, and if these "environmentalists" understand that the transition will be slow, and not "FAST/NOW" as some other "environmentalists" demand, then at least some of us agree with these other "environmentalists".

[edit on 7-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by Avenginggecko


BS. There are dozens, upon dozens of research which refute your Global Warming "FAITH". That's all Global Warming is for people such as you, a "faith" based hoax.

Obviously the Global Warming Hoax crowd likes to claim all scientists who disagree with them are "stooges of oil companies"... I mean really, grow up... And posting from a GREEN website without any real proof is not proof...

If CO2 was really cause for much warming like the Global Warming Hoax crowd keeps claiming, then why did we have cooler temperatures not only this year, but at least three years in a row, with the worse winters in many countries around the world for decades, and even the coldest winter in a century as in the case of China?

Does CO2 cause warming only when the Global Warming Hoax crowd want it to, and then causes cooling when they want it to change?....





[edit on 7-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Because most ATSers are frothing at the mouth evangelical christians, and you know how it goes.. everything here was put here by God for them to consume and use.. why consider anything other than the Lord?

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
There are many replies and lots of banter, but only one real truth to the OP's question.

Anti-Environmentalists are anti-cap and trade.

It doesn't matter how real or true human caused global warming is.

It doesn't matter how much proof or credible study occurs to support global warming.

It doesn't matter how many scientists that spend their lives studying the environment say.

It doesn't matter how many observers, witnesses, and industry insiders say that we are causing a global climate change.



It all comes down to the fear of paying another tax.

They're not concerned about the Earth, about future generations, or about our ecosystem as a whole.

They just fear a tax. That's all. And as you can see they will jump through hoops of fire and twist pretty pretzels of logic to make it seem like the truth that's staring us all in the face really isn't, because they can find a web site somewhere on the internet that supports them.

Well, I shouldn't say they aren't concerned about the Earth, etc. They are just far more concerned about a tax and how that will affect their wallet in the short term.

EXACTLY! - You hit the nail on the head! Maybe we can communicate now. I want solutions to problems not a scam to make wealthy people wealthier with no results!!! Now were getting somewhere.

The problem is what shady power hungry people "so called solutions" to these problems.

I have to ask again, does anyone here think "Cap & Trade" is not a scam? I gotta know.

Look, global warming caused by CO2, believe it or not it doesn't matter because cap and trade is one big money scam and a stealth tax on all of us and it will not take a single ton of Co2 out of the atmosphere.

Most of us realize this. Most of us are sick to death of "fringe environmentalist" trying to dictate how we live while making an ungodly profit for themselves and not solving anything. If you solved the problem, you wouldn't need to pay them.

So, seeing what is going on it makes perfect sense for me NOT to like them to much or support their "cause" of making allot of money for themselves.

This cap and trade scam will only get in the way of solving any problems.

www.newscientist.com...

If you want to tax us.. then freeking tax us to build Algae oil plants in the desert southwest (serves both purposes, Carbon Neutral & 100% Domestic energy needs satisfied), or tax us for garbage plasma facilities.

REAL solutions not "paper trading" scams!

Algae Oil, A Real Solution

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Plasma Power Plants - A Real Solution
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



[edit on 7-7-2009 by infolurker]

Originally posted by contemplator
Because most ATSers are frothing at the mouth evangelical christians, and you know how it goes.. everything here was put here by God for them to consume and use.. why consider anything other than the Lord?

I guess that makes you a frothing at the mouth Satanist?

Hey, you want to label everyone who disagrees with your Global Warming faith as "frothing at the mouth evangelical Christian", then it must be true you are a "frothing at the mouth Satanist"....

[edit on 7-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Anti-Environmentalists are anti-cap and trade.

A large amount anti-environmental companies, ones that pollute, and poison the environment, even ones that are massive oil companies, all regularly support cap and trade. As an example, UK taxpayers are paying 3rd world countries to poison its own environment], while building more noxious factories. They do this through the reduction of Carbon dioxide emissions, getting paid for this to build more factories that emit HFC23, of which 1 ton is equivalent to 11,700 tons of carbon. They are PAID to do this.

www.globalclimatescam.com...

So in actual fact Global Warming is a political issue, not an environmental issue, and furthermore the subscribing of Global Warming by environmentalists often helps destroy the environment, rather than help it. Directly, it creates carbon cap and trade programmes which outsource jobs, poison other countries, and it takes funds away from more pressing environmental issues.

www.copenhagenconsensus.com...

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

Additionally, AGW theory is often preventing growth in 3rd world nations, by preventing them use in coal power, instead pushing solar which is genocidal as SOLAR is a complete waste of time - as is wind. Try looking at the energy densities and furthermore, the costs, then understand that neither can provide a base load.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, because i mean no offence, but i really cannot take your word (or anyone else's word for that matter) over that of 2500 different scientist.

LOL. More on that later, however.

www.petitionproject.org...

That's 31,000 scientists (including more than 9,000 PhDs).

31,000 > 2,500, however, of course, this will not change your mind.

It doesn't matter how real or true human caused global warming is.

Well that's not very true at all because the AGW theory has been obliterates time and time again.

www.bobbrinsmead.com... for one.

Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change. Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

It doesn't matter how much proof or credible study occurs to support global warming.

You mean like IPCC? The panel that does it for political gain and furthermore edits the results of scientists who "contribute".

As stated previously, and a million times before.

www.bobbrinsmead.com...

www.petitionproject.org...

www.bobbrinsmead.com...

epw.senate.gov...

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.bobbrinsmead.com...

jennifermarohasy.com...

I think that's enough reading for one night.

It doesn't matter how many scientists that spend their lives studying the environment say.

No, of course not.

www.bobbrinsmead.com...

www.petitionproject.org...

www.bobbrinsmead.com...

31,000 scientists, 9000 phD.

No "conensus".

z4.invisionfree.com...

And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. Professor David Bellamy
The suggestion that future hazardous climate events could in any way be mitigated by the control of carbon dioxide emissions is absurdity in the extreme. William Kininmonth, Emeritus head of Australia’s National Climate Centre
Carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad. It is wholly beneficial…There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial. Dr. David Archibald
Compared to solar magnetic fields, however, the carbon dioxide production has as much influence on climate as a flea has on the weight of an elephant. Dr. Oliver K Manuel, University of Missouri
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions causes global warming. Dr. David Evans

The "It's scientific consensus" argument is funny. Well firstly, this is ATS, maybe we should shut this website down and go back to mainstream beliefs because, after all, it's CONSENSUS. Furthermore the consensus used to be that the earth was flat, and it took many years, including ridicule of a minority of scientists to prove otherwise. You see, science is not about consensus, but about what can be proven or not. AGW, cannot be, as indicated by the last 20 years of it and still no agreement. And lastly, there is no consensus, as outlined above and a hundred times previously.

z4.invisionfree.com...

"To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact."
- Albert Einstein, 1931

Of course, now that I disagreed with this new religion, I'm probably going to be name called, you know "anti-environmentalist" (despite the opposite being true, AGW believers are the true anti-environmentalists), and ridiculed. I say, bring it on.

It doesn't matter how many observers, witnesses, and industry insiders say that we are causing a global climate change.

Bla bla bla, you have stated the exact same thing about 5 times already.

It all comes down to the fear of paying another tax.

LOL. Your arguements are pretty funny.

It comes down to a fear of destroying the environment even more, giving our money to douches like Al Gore, giving out money offshore, outsourcing jobs, believing in false science, because school children play games in school where they blow themselves up to save the environment, and the fact that a quartar of school children thinks the world will end from GW before they get older, Carbon taxation and ETS are a threat to human freedom, and furthermore believing in AGW is commiting what is essentially genocide against the 3rd world. Why don't you read about how Al gore helped kill millions in the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 90's.

The suggestion that future hazardous climate events could in any way be mitigated by the control of carbon dioxide emissions is absurdity in the extreme. William Kininmonth formerly head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation.

History is full of examples of sheep being led to slaughter, but none on such a grand scale as we have today. Viv Forbes, Carbon Sense Coalition.

The truth, however, is that Kyoto, as a means to reduce carbon emissions, has been like Monty Python's parrot, long dead, despite all the protestations to the contrary by its salesmen.... Some people have described offsets as the carbon market equivalent of the medieval sale of Indulgences by the Catholic Church; but as Prof Prins points out, the Church sold them only as a means of atoning for the sins of the past – "carbon offsets" are sold to absolve us from sins in the future, an even more preposterous transaction. Nigel Lawson(House of Lords), The Independent, 9/12/2008


It is the greatest scam in history. John Coleman, (he is the founder of the Weather Channel and was known as the Weather Man across the USA for many years)

And you believe in global warming why? Is it because you're wrong on every point thus beleiving in false assumptions and science, is it because you love fighting what you probably consider rednecks or mouth frothing christians (I apologise putting words in your mouth, however it seems that's honestly what your crowd believes), or is it to save the environment, despite it not being abled to do anything?

They're not concerned about the Earth, about future generations, or about our ecosystem as a whole.

I'm concerned about what is true and what is not true. As previously proven, the AGW theory is FAKE and is taken money from more pressing humanaitarian and environmental issues. Therefore, you have it the wrong way around. Besides, you AGW proponents keep pointing out how we don't care for the environment, bla bla bla bla bla, and derailing the whole thing.

Well, uhhhhh, science doesn't care about the environment, no, it's based on logic and facts. Are you based on logic and facts? Because it seems to me like you're ranting on about complete crap.

They just fear a tax. That's all. And as you can see they will jump through hoops of fire and twist pretty pretzels of logic to make it seem like the truth that's staring us all in the face really isn't, because they can find a web site somewhere on the internet that supports them.

Well, this is the internet, bro. Convince me that Anthropogenic Global Warming is true then. But wait, let's use your logic, you'll have to find some internet site to do so, thus you'll have no arguement.

[edit on 7/7/2009 by C0bzz]