The Green Blackout

Started by AP, February 02, 2012, 01:53:28 am

Previous topic - Next topic

JimB

QuoteHowever, those people in the departments you mention do not have neo-pegan religions forming around them the way the green movement does.

The environmental movement is a neo-pagan religion? Can you even define the "environmental movement"? This is reminiscent of the Cornwall Alliance's declaration that the "environmental movement" is the literal Biblical antichrist (Green Dragon), otherwise known as batshittery amongst polite circles.

QuoteAlso, those department and industries were not the point of this thread.

Like China, genocide, Al Gore? Nature with a capital 'N', by the way, is a catch all term for the physical and natural universe, hence the most highly respected scientific journal in the world is called (you guessed it) Nature.

"The nature of nature" doesn't exactly read right.

QuoteI am sorry that my sharing my feelings on this subject brought you to anger.

Straw man fallacy. I might have been rubbing my eyes in disbelief at your attack on the "environmental movement", though.

QuoteYet the movements you seem to support and their public faces actively seek the power necessary to directly effect my life and my liberty, even my very ability to work and prosper.

Does Alex Epstein point out that the coal industry costs the US taxpayers up to just under half a trillion dollars in external costs each year (cleanup, healthcare, etc)? Thought not. How does uncritically supporting a shill for a US Chamber of Commerce astroturfing front group, who cleverly appeals to a section of the population's confirmation biases and propagandises for industries that wilfully pollute their neighbors' properties and health without permission while they rent-seek through socialising their external costs, tie in with your (seemingly) libertarian values?
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

TheBadger

March 21, 2012, 10:39:14 am #16 Last Edit: March 21, 2012, 11:12:14 am by TheBadger
QuoteThe environmental movement is a neo-pagan religion? Can you even define the "environmental movement"? This is reminiscent of the Cornwall Alliance's declaration that the "environmental movement" is the literal Biblical antichrist (Green Dragon), otherwise known as batshittery amongst polite circles.


Where did I say that, I think, the environmental movement is a neo-pagan religion? No place. Its funny you accusing me of argumentative fallacy, and then twisting my words or just flat out putting words in my mouth which you have done several times in this thread already.
But the environmental movement does in fact include a large subset of so called earth worshipers or, neo-pagans. Who are affecting the culture of the Earth/Environmental movement. This subject was broached in the videos, both the lecture video and the debate video. Did you even watch?

I dont know the cornwall alliance or their views on anything. But I'm sure you are mentioning some crazy people you found on the internet, in order to associate my views with theirs. 

QuoteQuote
Also, those department and industries were not the point of this thread.
Like China, genocide, Al Gore? Nature with a capital 'N', by the way, is a catch all term for the physical and natural universe, hence the most highly respected scientific journal in the world is called (you guessed it) Nature.

"The nature of nature" doesn't exactly read right.


Al Gore was mentioned in the video multiple times. I added china as an example of where Holdern's ideas are policy.

The journal "Nature" should be capitalized. Nature is also capitalized when it is being referred to as a person. But there is no such person as Mother Nature, by any name. The Earth its self, is not alive. When people refer to the Earth as a person, this is neo-paganry. This is how Al Gore has repeatedly used the word nature in his talks and writing. I do not know if he believes in "Nature" or if he is simply pandering to the most devoted of his supporters.

QuoteQuote
I am sorry that my sharing my feelings on this subject brought you to anger.
Straw man fallacy. I might have been rubbing my eyes in disbelief at your attack on the "environmental movement", though.


Straw man, really?  I was being sincere.

QuoteQuote
Yet the movements you seem to support and their public faces actively seek the power necessary to directly effect my life and my liberty, even my very ability to work and prosper.
Does Alex Epstein point out that the coal industry costs the US taxpayers up to just under half a trillion dollars in external costs each year (cleanup, healthcare, etc)? Thought not. How does uncritically supporting a shill for a US Chamber of Commerce astroturfing front group, who cleverly appeals to a section of the population's confirmation biases and propagandises for industries that wilfully pollute their neighbors' properties and health without permission while they rent-seek through socialising their external costs, tie in with your (seemingly) libertarian values?


He does in fact respond to the external cost argument of his opponent in the debate, and the question of external costs relating to what the environmental movement wants.

The rest of what your saying here is your personal view, which you are entitled to, Im not in agreement or opposition. I have already said in this thread that I do not trust the energy companies anymore than I trust the environmental movement, which is to say, not at all. I have already said I don't trust anyone to have power over my life.

I have not made one argument in favor of the oil companies as entities, I have not praised them in any way. It is fallacious of you to try and make it sound as though, because Im against most of the environmental movement, that therefore I am for big energy. Or that I am against a heathy eco-system. I am not. Why should I make arguments on your behalf? Why do we only ever get to choose between two horrible things?

Yes I am a libertarian. And like Ron Paul, I believe we are all completely screwed. But that does not mean that I'm going to jump on the environmental bandwagon and help them make things even worse.
It has been eaten.

JimB

Quote from: TheBadger on March 21, 2012, 10:39:14 am
Where did I say that, I think, the environmental movement is a neo-pagan religion? No place.

I must have imagined the specific words "neo-pagan" in your pre-edited comment. Abject apologies.
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

TheBadger

Quote from: JimB on April 03, 2012, 06:23:22 pm
Quote from: TheBadger on March 21, 2012, 10:39:14 am
Where did I say that, I think, the environmental movement is a neo-pagan religion? No place.

I must have imagined the specific words "neo-pagan" in your pre-edited comment. Abject apologies.


Hey JimB,

I said that the departments you mentioned (pentagon and so on) do not have neo-pagan religions forming around them the way the environmental movement does.
The environmental movement does in fact have a serious issue in that regard. And I find the effort of environmental groups, including groups within the U.N to make plant and animal live equal to that of a human life, deeply disturbing. Horrific.
The earth is not alive. There is no mother of nature... I know you are not arguing this, but those people who do, are a large part of the earth movement. Making the earth movement and the environmental movement indistinguishable in terms of activism and probably, in the long run, with policy too.

I don't know what you mean by pre-edited. I fire from the hip. I think this is why I get into so many arguments.
When I do edit a post, its only for spelling and grammar. I openly admit I'm a terrible typer.
It has been eaten.

AP

Oh, a Ron Paul guy. Neat. END THE FED!    :)

JimB

QuoteAnd I find the effort of environmental groups, including groups within the U.N to make plant and animal live equal to that of a human life, deeply disturbing. Horrific.


Without the environment we're toast, and that includes animal and plant species. We cannot survive on the Moon without an artificial environment that would most likely include plants, for instance and to illustrate how no human is an island.

QuoteThe earth is not alive. There is no mother of nature...


I suspect you're repeating something you heard at the pub. If you mean Gaia, it's a valid scientific hypothesis discussed in the scientific literature, which does not attribute 'sentient life' to the ball of rock we stand on. Look up James Lovelock.

QuoteMaking the earth movement and the environmental movement indistinguishable in terms of activism and probably, in the long run, with policy too.


They pay taxes as well. I believe they're as entitled to push for policies every bit as much as CFACT are.
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

TheBadger

April 04, 2012, 01:40:01 pm #21 Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 01:44:44 pm by TheBadger
Yes I understand the value of non human life on earth, but a single animal is not equal to a single human. And I should not have to list examples proving there are a lot of people who believe in equality between all life forms. Its pretty out in the open.

If Gaia is a valid scientific hypothesis, so is Star Wars

Everyone pays taxes, even crazy people.
It has been eaten.

JimB

Quote from: TheBadger on April 04, 2012, 01:40:01 pm
Yes I understand the value of non human life on earth, but a single animal is not equal to a single human. And I should not have to list examples proving there are a lot of people who believe in equality between all life forms. Its pretty out in the open.


I think you're confusing the animal liberationists with environmentalists.

Quote from: TheBadger on April 04, 2012, 01:40:01 pm
If Gaia is a valid scientific hypothesis, so is Star Wars


Google Scholar will tell you otherwise:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=gaia+theory&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

TheBadger

QuoteI think you're confusing the animal liberationists with environmentalists.


Nope. My point was and is, that those groups are all tangled up with each other in the environmental movement as a coalition. Thats nothing new politically. But the amount of power through policy their after is staggering. And I still maintain that almost none of their ideas will fix anything. But I do agree that we are in serious trouble, and that we can't trust big energy either. The Political sides are never going to agree and neither will the people.
SO what do we do?

I don't want to argue about Gaia anymore, I realize that someone could read this and be offended because thats their belief system. My main point is that I don't want neo-pegan religion affecting environmental law, domestic or international policy, that I have to live under.
It has been eaten.

gregsandor

Quote from: calico on March 20, 2012, 11:22:35 am
The enemy isn't someone who cares about our environment - plain and simple. 


Caring about the environment is different than establishing a new stock market to trade in shares of pollution credits.  If Gore had really wanted to improve the condition of the natural envfironment, there are thousands of approaches that would have done good.  Creating a vehicle to make money for himself and his friends isn't one of them, and arguably would have had the effect of causing more harm.

JimB

Al Gore did not invent global warming.  ::)
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

gregsandor

April 10, 2012, 01:54:28 pm #26 Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 01:57:36 pm by gregsandor
Quote from: JimB on April 10, 2012, 01:30:05 pm
Al Gore did not invent global warming.  ::)


Correct.  He just found a way to profit from it at my expense.  10,000 years ago the desk I am sitting at was under a mile of ice.  In 1677 the Thames froze solid during the Little Ice Age.  In the early 1970's we were threatened by Gore's spiritual predecessors that today we would be entering a new Ice Age, and now that Global Warming is not panning out, Gore's coreligionists have begun calling their threat "Climate Change."  Soon we will hear of the dangerous cooling unless we send money immediately, and that the mile thick glacier will once again cover my home.

Without a changing climate life on Earth would die. 

Here's the Thames in 1677

[attachimg=1]

JimB

Ah, a painting of the Thames when it was wider and flowed much more slowly, ergo....

The Thames has frozen over roughly 14 times in over 1000 years. Not such a big deal.

The highest percentage of climate scientists who you will find disagreeing with man significantly contributing to global warming is five percent. And before you cite the 31,000 scientists of the Oregon Petition, signatories of that little gem are merely science graduates, include Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls (twice), the doctors from M*A*S*H, and lots of people who were dead at the time they supposedly signed it.

QuoteIn the early 1970's we were threatened by Gore's spiritual predecessors that today we would be entering a new Ice Age


Untrue. Most scientific papers in the 1970s were predicting warming, and by 1980 any predictions of ice ages had stopped.
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

JimB

Quote from: gregsandor on April 10, 2012, 01:54:28 pm
Without a changing climate life on Earth would die.


Without a Holocene climate we'd still be hunter-gatherers and scavengers: no civilisation.
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

gregsandor

April 11, 2012, 03:30:29 am #29 Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 03:34:47 am by gregsandor
Quote from: JimB on April 11, 2012, 01:48:15 am
Ah, a painting of the Thames when it was wider and flowed much more slowly, ergo....

The Thames has frozen over roughly 14 times in over 1000 years. Not such a big deal.


So you're saying that over a period of a thousand years the Thames widened and narrowed in a cycle, permitting it to freeze some years and flow in others?  It wasn't the temperature dropping?  The crop losses over wide regions weren't due to cold, but rather ... what?  And by your standard, since it is "Not such a big deal," a few years of warming or cooling in modern times doesn't justify an enormous regulatory and financial market scam. 

[attachimg=1]

The language and tactics are the same, it is just a different flip of the coin as to which threat they use to rationalize their agenda.

[attachimg=2]