How green zealots are destroying the planet!

reply to post by purplemer


Well true, that prof Ove hoegh, gave a sollution:

One obvious fix, according to the IPSO, is a greater effort to prevent over-fishing, which "is now estimated to account for over 60 percent of the known local and global extinction of marine fishes," says William Cheung of the University of East Anglia, as quoted by Reuters. And, "unlike climate change, it can be directly, immediately and effectively tackled by policy change." Reducing pollution, including plastics, agricultural fertilizers and human waste, would help, too. Ultimately, though, the authors say we must eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. "If we don't do that," says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, as quoted by BBC News, "we're going to see steady acidification of the seas, heat events that are wiping out things like kelp forests and coral reefs, and we'll see a very different ocean."

First overfishing; ''it's a big business''. Maybe some country's will play it nicely, but some for sure don't or even may fish more when others don't.
Reducing pollutions, plastics, agricultural fertilizers and human waste, it's possible to change this but I only see more usage of all the above, not less. Plastic is cheap and easy. I got tons of plastic, just buying food in the supermarket. It will be hard, even for me alone not using any plastic and again as I said, it hardly makes a difference what I do personally. And I don't have much faith that the government will come with sollutions, their main concern, now even more after this crisis, is money! Heck, in my country (holland), as a result of this crisis money for nature, is one of the first to get reductions. But though some things became better, we collect plastics (seperate it) from the normal garbage.
But others country's simply don't, and it's not a perfect sollution even, but it helps yes.

And funny thing is, we got tough rules here in Holland, but farmers just move to Poland, or EU money is used for farmers in cheap country's with no rules where they make mega big farmers/pig company's (or what's the right word in english?).
It's basicly the same with many products made in China, with no rules and so on to protect nature or hardly, those products get shipped over sea with ships wich run on very cheap and very very dirty and cheap diesel oil (not the same diesel as used in cars).

So man this is soo hard to really solve. And to get serious co2 reductions, sorry- I don't see that happen. Animals for consumption, if someone says ''eat less'', that's a good start with co2 reductions? will they eat less? no people just do what they like. And maybe you will stop eating flesh or less, but my bet is that there will be more meat production, each year. Only in my small country (16 million people), we got 20 million pigs each year for being processed for food. In 10 years 200 million and that number will grow surely, less pigs would be a good co2 reduction.. it's big business.

From the article...

"As someone who loves long walks in unspoilt countryside and who wants a brighter future for his children, I’m sickened by the way environmental activists tar anyone who disagrees with them as a selfish, polluting, anti-science ‘denier’.

The real deniers are..."

You see that? "The REAL deniers". This is where the author reveals his immature naive attitude.

And that spot above: "anyone who disagrees with them". There's another red flag. The article is written from the mind of a petulant child.

He wants his unspoilt countryside over HERE, and drilling, and smoke stacks, trash, pollution and contaminated soil, water, and air over THERE. Denial is his refuge.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


And your response to this is any less childish???


Why don't you try reading the posts on the page before this one and actually contribute to the conversation. We're trying to move beyond emotional rants here.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


No, he is revealing his opinion, which you can find out about by reading the article. His opinion based on facts and observations on how systems work.
And which you have just clearly demonstrated not to have done (read)..
You have also just demonstrated you utter denial to consider any other view, then those propagated by mass media, and established doctrine.
You have in effect discredited a man, not by his ideas and facts presented, but by his use of words.
This is also known as character assassination.
You have failed to espoused upon any idea he wrote down, that is specific and to the point.
At the first sign of something that goes against your established views, you have labeled him.
This is very much the same as what racists, and religious fanatics do.
Ohh well. another day, another post.

It's like looking in a mirror.
The media is making this opinion of many people that they don't believe this climate change has anything to do what humans do today, most often.
Science isn't in doubt, but we rather believe or have our own opinion anyways, which is ok, everyone his opinion and not that it really matters what you or me belief.

So now most people don't believe science but any piece they find about why it's not true that humans have any cause, they will believe it right away.

reply to post by Plugin


you write:

The media is making this opinion of many people that they don't believe this climate change has anything to do what humans do today, most often.

Its even more complex. For example in this article, the author is not even DENYING climate change.

What a steaming pile of BS.

It's out of control capitalists who are destroying the planet, just as it's always been since the dawn of the industrial age.

reply to post by FightHard


out of control.
no need for capitalist.
they are hardly capitalists are they?
bribing the government and being in cohorts with them, is hardly capitalistic.
it is a crime, regardless of the system.
what amazes me it the blindness of the people.
strike where it hurts.
where does it hurt?

I will tell you.

www.youtube.com...

Join scientist and renowned historian Naomi Oreskes as she describes her investigation into the reasons for such widespread mistrust and misunderstanding of scientific consensus and probes the history of organized campaigns designed to create public doubt and confusion about science.

^ must say she got an irritating voice, so hard to listen too.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Climate Denial emerged as a political campaign of the Marshall Institute in the early 90's, using the so-called fairness doctrine, which states that proponents and opponents should have an equal amount of media attention.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Plugin

 

you write:

The media is making this opinion of many people that they don't believe this climate change has anything to do what humans do today, most often.

Its even more complex. For example in this article, the author is not even DENYING climate change.

Well in some way he is?. First he says:

How come, against so much evidence, everyone from the BBC to your kids’ teachers to the Coalition government (though that may change somewhat now Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has resigned), to the President of the Royal Society to the Prince of Wales continues to pump out the message that man-made ‘climate change’ is a major threat?

Why, when the records show that there has been no global warming since 1997, are we still squandering billions of pounds trying to avert it?

and:

The latest data released by the Met Office, based on readings from 30,000 measuring stations, confirms there has been no global warming for 15 years.

skepticalscience.com...
For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

So who is cherry picking????

Then at the end he says; he's angry at ''green people'' because they are angry at the industrial civilization as we know it or something like that, seems he hates some green movements, as he said he even got some treats of some personaly.

So it's for him a personal opinion and some hatred for something; he says that the green are to blaim because they hate certain things.

That's doensn't make much sence, blaiming someone and doing it himself?

I can't really read anywhere he believes in global warming are caused by humans, only that he believed richer country's are better for ensuring a cleaner environment.

Anyways after reading that piece, I don't see the point he's trying to make.

And that site is just well known to be very hard sceptical about global warning, I wonder you can read some piece on that site on this matter which a different sound.

reply to post by Plugin


you obviously cannot read.
he is talking about global warming.
this mantra has been officially abandoned, has it not?
NO ONE, including the hysteria crowd talk about global warming anymore, have you not noticed this?
so the rest of your post is irrelevant.

Okay, but why is there even a discussion?

You can make the same opinon but then visa versa basicly and as with global warming, nothing serious is being done, just endless talk, talk and talk.

reply to post by Plugin


anyway, what happened to global warming?
when did it get renamed global climate change?

if there is global warming why is there no global warming for the last 15 years? Yes, this may seem simplistic and demagogue question, but we are either experiencing a global warming or not. Ok 15 years may not be a long time (that would be 3o-4o years), but still? Why no plausible explanation, just hysteria?
Do you remember global cooling in the early 8os?
Why are the glaciers not melting as fast as they should be, in fact not melting at all.

You do know, there are a number of proven and untested scientific theories, going against the dogma.
One of these theories speculates, with considerable proof the the erosion of CLOUD covers are responsible for global climate change.
You know what, the scientists examining this cloud change, which may very well be caused by humans, are ostracized....Does that seem like science to you?
Why is anyone that scientifically examines global climate change, that does so, not from the official dogma, get ostracized?

Global warming received a nobel prize in 2oo7. Does that not seem ridiculous to you, especially in light of how many times nobel price has been given out erroneously, even to the cure of cancer? Long term economic investment fund ring a bell, etc?


This is now ridiculous, and it is so evidently a scam, it not even funny.
Now everyone not denying climate change, but proposing alternative research, because of the many holes in the model is ostracized....IS this normal?
Here is the google page for an plausible alternate theory, that may even be caused or aggravated by humans, yet ridiculed, check out the first few links:
www.google.hu...

One question. Between Big Oil and Green Zealots... Which one is causing endless wars? Which one is profiting from the wars? I have yet to see our troops come home in boxes for Green Zealots.

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
One question. Between Big Oil and Green Zealots... Which one is causing endless wars? Which one is profiting from the wars? I have yet to see our troops come home in boxes for Green Zealots.

they are both evil, it is a false choice. common sense and logic should get rid of them both.