The Face of Authoritarian Environmentalism

Why does anyone think that concern for our environment is a bad thing. Those reports are based on real evidence that hasn't been twisted by greed. If we don't start changing very quick there will be a large collapse of the Ecosystem which includes mankinds foodchain before 2030. This is true fact. That's within my lifetime and my children's lifetime.

Conservation of our environment doesn't have to cost us much more. Build things to last so we don't have to remake them. Build things more efficient and don't water your lawns so often. Why can't a toaster last forty years and never go out of style. I'm saying the basis of capitalism is partly to blame. We created a false economy based on waste. Quit making all the chemistry that is polluting everything and destroying the foodchain. Do you think that oil spill hurt BP? Who's paying for it in the end? Just build the rigs with the best possible safety features, get rid of the traders that inflate the price of oil and it will be cheaper for us. Throw a buck tax on fuel so we conserve and allow cars that are good on gas to reach the USA. 50 MPG is average in England and the cars have plenty of power. Same with Italy. The system that we use to meet EPA has severe flaws in it so our cars get poor mileage. Get rid of the corn fuel, it sucks. Mileage is poorer, they allow chemicals in the fields that make the soil unusable for food production for many years. They also deplete the soils rapidly. Environmentalism has to be global. Leave the family living in the jungle alone, they aren't polluting much. We are.

I like toilet paper and I will plant 5 trees a year if I have to so I can continue using it

Look i am just going to say someone fell out the ugly tree and got hit by the whole forest on the way down. Anyway this is really annoying that another scientist/intellectual is trying to make the majority bow to her whims. The I think you should obey me syndrome. This stinks of a EPA power grab.

Originally posted by yuppa
Look i am just going to say someone fell out the ugly tree and got hit by the whole forest on the way down.

I’ve come to discover that no matter how unattractive a person may be, when they open up their mouths and expose corruption and tell the truth they actually appear quite beautiful. I’ve seen many MSM talking heads that look like models but when they open up their mouths and spew out lies and deception they look just as ugly and revolting as any ugly liar.

One and two sentence replies ("wisecracks") can kill good discussions Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.
ATS policy on comments that do not add to the discussion

Her degrees are in what again?

She has a BS in Biology and a PHD in Sociology and because of those two extremely unrelated degrees she believes that she can lecture the rest of us, even suggest that we be drugged so we accept her believes.

You know what global warming activists sound like? Religous extremists. Thats all their pet "theory" is. Global warming is a religon to these people. Many of them know little about climatology or paleoclimatology and the ones making the most insane statements like this woman have degrees that are completely unrelated. The reason your not hearing from people who actually know what they are talking about is because the science isn't adding up. The models don't work. 1998 was the hottest year on record.

These academics continue to cling to there religion though because it has the power to force world governments to give them more money and more power so that they can steer our civilization to their utopia. The saddest part of this is just how bad the science is. Many of these papers would have been laughed out of confrences 20 years ago and their writers would have had their careers ruined. But now global warming is where the grant money is.

Its sad really. The man hours that have been wasted on this incomplete theory could have been used to help mankind, not to neuter it. Conservation is one thing. This is something much more destructive.

The pieces are in place, these laws are across the board. Show opposition,contrasting opinion of the authority at large and you will be deemed incompetent, enemy of the state or combatant. Next stop, Camp F.E.M.A. Now where is the shill to defend her comment?

reply to post by brill


That's Oregon for you.. bunch of Californian Progressive dumbasses. ##SNIP## asshats like that have driven the state and cities into the ground..

reply to post by brill

controversially compared skepticism of global warming to racism.

accepting humans as being responsible for climate change ‘must be recognised

So which is it? Global warming or climate change? They are two very different things with very different definitions. Global warming is merely one type of climate change, and it's a hoax. Although there are other types of climate change which are dead real and undoubtedly caused by Humans. It is extremely naive to merge climate change and global warming into interchangeable terms, because people will ridicule both subjects whilst only one deserves to be ridiculed. It is ignorant to think we can keep destroying the environment for the benefit of our species, don't delude yourself into believing perpetual destruction of the environment wont come back to bite as on the ass. Eventually it WILL lead to our demise. Balance is the key to everything.

reply to post by rickymouse


Nothing is wrong with caring from the environment.

What's wrong is authoritarian thought police environmentalists like the one mentioned in the opening post. And as someone who wants action on climate change, it bothers me that I am associated (and thus to an extent discredited) with such jackasses simply because a small section of our views overlap. Not only are her views completely twisted, I'm betting all this Oregon University professor has done is turn even more people off the thought of global warming and since they obviously did not forsee this, then this professor falls into the complete jackass loony bin.

I'm not sure who disgusts me more. Climate deniers who should know better or environmentalist thought police. Actually I think I'll go with the latter. Also when I say that her views disgust me, I don't mean to sound dramatic, I mean it literally disgusts me to the fullest extent of the word 'disgust' that is possible.

reply to post by brill


How is she being authoritarian. She wrote in a scientific paper, she is not an elected governmental offical. Further she is correct climate sceptism is a aberrant sociological behaviour. It is not in dispute among peer reviewed scientific papers.

reply to post by C0bzz

They are scientists. They aren't that smart. They have been conditioned to believe that there needs to be proof for something to be real. People have been noticing that our Ecosystem has been failing for years and have been trying to tell the world and it hasn't been listening. Now at almost the point of no return Science is starting to get all the evidence they desire. They have extensive proof now and are going to push for enforcement.

The requirement that there has to be proven evidence for things to be classified as real has made a mess of things in the protection of our environment. If we wouldn't have had people protecting what they could our Ecosystem would have failed twenty years ago and would have destroyed our foodchain. Most governments agree now along with science that conservation of our resources has to be observed quickly. This requires reevaluating most of the chemicals presently in use. Hopefully the USA will come onboard quickly because they are the most wastefull country right now. The quantity of people wasting things is what counts. A few wasteful people is nothing.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by rickymouse

They are scientists. They aren't that smart.

Of course scientists are smart. But unfortunately being smart doesn't preclude one from being delusional or for being right on every single issue. Plus, their opinions vary just like the rest of ours.

The requirement that there has to be proven evidence for things to be classified as real has made a mess of things in the protection of our environment.

Uhm.... shouldn't that be exactly how it should be though? You can't regulate things if they may or may not have ill effects. When we just started using fossil fuels we shouldn't of avoided using them (and thus live in poverty) just because it might have an ill effect.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by brill

 

How is she being authoritarian. She wrote in a scientific paper, she is not an elected governmental offical. Further she is correct climate sceptism is a aberrant sociological behaviour. It is not in dispute among peer reviewed scientific papers.

1. That's the title, it must be used.
2. By definition: 'Favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, esp. that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.'

In that regard I would disagree with you. It is the lunatic ramblings of individuals like this which provide ideas for governments to act on. She's certainly welcome to her ideas but they can influence other weak minds to jump on the bandwagon. What's next ?? public flogging or incarceration for non believers ?

brill

reply to post by purplemer

How is she being authoritarian. She wrote in a scientific paper, she is not an elected governmental offical. Further she is correct climate sceptism is a aberrant sociological behaviour. It is not in dispute among peer reviewed scientific papers.

Climate change might not be disputed..........but Man Made Global warming is HIGHLY disputed in the scientific community.....

Failure to distinguish between the two, and attempting to make blanket statements , is just trying to curry favor and obfuscate the issue.......

reply to post by C0bzz

Using fossil fuels for need is alright. It seems like science was twisted around in our conquest for fuels to have to prove that we are causing harm to stop us from doing it. We can't just destroy our environment and expect it to recover. We have bigger equipment now and are accomplishing destruction of our environment at ever increasing rates. We have lost control of our people to a perpetual motion of deceptive practices. People have been brainwashed that god will come back and save the world. Why would he do that, he kicked us out of Eden for the same sort of thing. Many corporations give us everything that we want. That's wrong because people can't see they are lowering mankinds ability to live on this planet in the future. I suppose you don't care about your or your relatives grandchildren but I do. By the last calculation done by some of the major scientists our Ecosystem should be failing in about seventeen years. Are you going to be around about then? I plan on being here.

This is America and people have the right to believe what they want. I respect that right. If they don't do what is for the good of the people their rights are dissolved and imprisonment or death can be authorized and all their belongings confiscated. This the Law. This is how rationing was authorized in the past. Other countries look at us and scratch their heads but if the citizens of the USA do not heed the warnings by the other countries concerns for the future of the world, sanctions can be levied against us. What are we going to do bomb our allies?

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Global warming worries me less than the chemical changes we are making to the environment. Add the two together and we have a problem. I was guessing there would be a start of a collapse of the environment and a perpetual turning point of no return about three years ago. I personally think it's too late already. I guess it is a wait and see thing now. Why do things always have to swing to extremes in the societies of mankind? Are we really that bad at ignoring history? Can't they get less boring history teachers?

reply to post by rickymouse


I agree with a lot of your post.........but global warming should worry you just as much as chemical changes...

You see with things heating up, it could possibly be more disasterous.....

You have to think about growing season being off and sudden freezes followed by hot spells that could totally decimate the worlds food supply......

wild changes in weather throwing disease into a death spiral....

These things can happen.......

Altho i do strongly agree, the amount of crap were polluting with IS horrible...........radioactive waste etc.....

Japan being the most recent example.......

The entire global warming debate has been hijacked by state and corporate powers. Our environment is already contaminated thanks to corporations and the state all looking for power and profit at our expense. Corporations have polluted absolutely everything in their quest for the all-mighty dollar and states and the federal government have allowed it to happen. Look how polluted the military made the U.S. with radionuclides! Fossil fuels are absolutely destroying our air quality and probably do contribute somewhat to climate change. People act as if there is nothing wrong with burning fuel, simply because they don't think it is the only reason for climate change.

The governments and political powers want people to think they have the answer. They want new laws in place to control our populations even more than they do now. If they really cared, they would fine these corporations and demand they fix our environment. They would not allow the pollution in the first place, even. Corporations, on the other hand, want people to think that fossil fuels are absolutely clean so they face no repercussions for destroying the environment through multiple pathways, with oil spills the most obvious and televised. Corporations will also benefit from climate change laws and co2 stock exchanges because politicians will benefit monetarily when those said corporations benefit.

So the laws will be stacked in favor of corporations and our governments, no matter which side of the debate you are on. They cover both bases like someone said earlier. We need environmentalism because our environment has been destroyed by private business interests. We need to move past fossil fuels be as our main source of energy because their continued use and extraction are detrimental to our world. Neither business nor the state, have the answer. It is left up to us to decide the fate and solutions to our world, not those in power since those in power got us into this mess. Find our own solutions instead of accepting either one or the other stance given by those in power. You can't deny corporations and governments are destroying our ecosystem, so why would you look to them for answers?