"Environmentalism" is a Relegion Options

[Dogmeat]

http://cdfe.org/religion.htm

I think this is a wonderful article....

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths

Hmmmmmmmmm...............think about this.



OH! Snap

Facts? What are those? It makes no difference since nobody can prove a damned thing about any of it other than "yes the climate is changing".

Similar to "yes, we exist as humans here on earth"

OOOOHHH NOO!!!!!



I just LOVE IT when assfucks from LA and New York who have never set foot in dirt their entire lives vote for assfucks in washington that try to kick me off the land I actually do something to protect because I use it as opposed to just shutting it off completley so they can "feel good"

The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows. They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff. Or a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the cooking. Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real way, and nobody does. It's all talk-and as the years go on, and the world population grows increasingly urban, it's uninformed talk. Farmers know what they're talking about. City people don't. It's all fantasy

*GASP*

You mean LOCAL PEOPLE actually might know something that a bunch of egotistical fuckslaps in urban suburbia don't? NO!

But let's return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?

this is seriously the most intelligent thing I've ever read about "the environment" hahah

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth---that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

I agree with this mainly, however, the democrats are a LOT more prone to shutting the public out of land access as well as sending energy exploration over seas ... I don't know if he really researched this that well before he made that statement, but overall It hink he's correct.

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

aw

but if we did that then our savior al gore wouldn't have won his little trophy

[Oasis]

What the fuck means "Relegion"

?

[blaarg]

I'm curious how environmentalism movement has killed 30 or so million people.

And the part about the perfect 21st century remapping of Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths...
His article doesn't expand on this very well citing only: " Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday" as the connections...

I would say that his connections between environmentalism to those particular aspects are more so right than wrong with the movement, but making the statement that it is a "perfect" remapping of Judeo-Christian beliefs solely on four similarities seems extremely weak at best...


I think you could find Judea-Christian beliefs/similarities if you looked hard enough in almost anything which people are passionate about....

[Testm0nkey]

people out in real nature are the first ones to complain about impacts on the environment. ski slopes in the NE arent getting the same kind of snow levels as they used to thus their tourist based economy is traveling down the shitter (the Swiss are aware of this adn they are trying to do something about it). the snowpack they depend on for freshwater is disappearing all together. they are the ones who notice that "hey i remember a few years ago we had snow at this altitude. and i dont even need to be wearing a jacket right now"

that article doesnt make any sense

[Mommy]

What the fuck means "Relegion"

?

thank God you correct spelling on here...otherwise who knows what this board would become

[Hartmann]

people out in real nature are the first ones to complain about impacts on the environment. ski slopes in the NE arent getting the same kind of snow levels as they used to thus their tourist based economy is traveling down the shitter (the Swiss are aware of this adn they are trying to do something about it). the snowpack they depend on for freshwater is disappearing all together. they are the ones who notice that "hey i remember a few years ago we had snow at this altitude. and i dont even need to be wearing a jacket right now"

But there have only been 2-3 years of not that much snow. Then you get massive blizzards.

Kinda like the whole "OMG there are going to be so many hurricanes!!". Oh... wait.

[Mommy]

climate and weather patterns have fluctuated throughout history. when will people realize that is what is going on here

[Psykopath]

climate and weather patterns have fluctuated throughout history. when will people realize that is what is going on here

I don't contribute much anymore to NPR because it's usually a worthless endeavor to argue on the internet.

Your post reinforces my belief.

[Mommy]

I don't contribute much anymore to NPR because it's usually a worthless endeavor to argue on the internet.

Your post reinforces my belief.

oh. weird

[FORSAKENR320]

I don't contribute much anymore to NPR because it's usually a worthless endeavor to argue on the internet.

Your post reinforces my belief.

oh yea? well you're a Trouser-Pilot

[Mommy]

the environment doesnt exist. God has put the idea of the environment into our heads. why bother making an environment when He only has to make us THINK their is an environment. The same can be said of college football. Do you really want God controlling your mind?

[Dogmeat]

people out in real nature are the first ones to complain about impacts on the environment. ski slopes in the NE arent getting the same kind of snow levels as they used to thus their tourist based economy is traveling down the shitter (the Swiss are aware of this adn they are trying to do something about it). the snowpack they depend on for freshwater is disappearing all together. they are the ones who notice that "hey i remember a few years ago we had snow at this altitude. and i dont even need to be wearing a jacket right now"

that article doesnt make any sense

I am the last person in the UNIVERSE that needs a lecture about drought and snow levels.

[Dogmeat]

But, I think that article makes PERFECT sense.

He's saying take the political bullshit out of what should be a purley scientific process. He's saying take the emotional response out of something that should be purley objective. He's saying the "feel good" measures don't do a damn thing ultimatley, and unless people start taking a hard look at what is _REALLY_ happening all the feel-god measures won't ever solve anything.

He's saying what we've "done" has been mainly superficial and has not addressed any real problems because most of it's been a bunch of horse shit political pandering, and there hasn't been enough conclusive research done to support anything we have or haven't done for the most part.

I swear to god, that is the most intelligent and objective editorial on this subject I've read in a long time.

I'm sorry if you all are having a hard time grasping it, but the man is absolutley right in his thoughts on this subject.

[FORSAKENR320]

i agree


what you're saying is, take the hippies out of the equation, and something will prolly get accomplished

[Dogmeat]

i agree
what you're saying is, take the hippies out of the equation, and something will prolly get accomplished

take the lawyers and politicians out of the process as well as the hippies and rednecks who dont give a fuck, and we might get something done.

[Psykopath]

take the lawyers and politicians out of the process as well as the hippies and rednecks who dont give a fuck, and we might get something done.

oh well, shit...

Putting that way: I agree 100%.

[Testm0nkey]

But there have only been 2-3 years of not that much snow. Then you get massive blizzards.

Kinda like the whole "OMG there are going to be so many hurricanes!!". Oh... wait.

this year there were several hurricane records set. including a storm trifecta and a storm originating in a place where they never originate from (due to increase in water temp - hurricanes need warm water to develope). so yes there were so many hurricanes! (including intensities getting higher and higher over the years)

temp. cont. to rise like predicted = storms becoming more common on AVERAGE and intensities will increase

edit: dogmeat did you just totally do a 180 and change your stance on global warming? make up your mind!

[Mommy]

oh well, shit...

Putting that way: I agree 100%.

I only agree 99.9%

[Hartmann]

this year there were several hurricane records set. including a storm trifecta and a storm originating in a place where they never originate from. so yes there were so many hurricanes! (including intensities getting higher and higher over the years)

Did I say there were no hurricanes? No. Nowhere did I say that.

Except that some named storms this year would technically not have been named storms before... And, we are becoming quicker and quicker at naming storms: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html

hmmm, sounds like politics to me.

There were only 2 Cat. 3+ storms in the Atlantic this year and only 6 hurricanes total.

I'm curious, which storm formed where no others had formed?
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at2007.asp

My Colorado State University colleagues and I attribute the increase in hurricane activity to the speed-up of water circulating in the Atlantic Ocean. This circulation began to strengthen in 1995 -- at exactly the same time that Atlantic hurricane activity showed a large upswing.

The warming theorists... have the ears of the news media. But there is another plausible explanation, supported by decades of physical observation," he continued. "The spate of recent destructive hurricanes may have little or nothing to do with greenhouse gases and climate change, and everything to do with the Atlantic Ocean's currents.

-William Gray, Hurricane Researcher, Colorado State University

[Testm0nkey]

and theres a couple hundred who say its due in part to warming


hurricanes need warm water to form. temp is increasing/water temp is increasing. thus more strength for hurricanes. that isnt arguable

[Mommy]

let's all pretend to be scientists and talk about the earth even though we dont know anything except what we have read from other people who pretend to know too

[Hartmann]

and theres a couple hundred who say its due in part to warming
hurricanes need warm water to form. temp is increasing/water temp is increasing. thus more strength for hurricanes. that isnt arguable

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't refuting that, I simply posted a quote that gives an alternative reason as to why the warming occurs and why it's occurred since 1995.

Again, which hurricane formed where no others had?

I was pointing out that the doomsday notion that is bestowed upon is false, once again.

[Psykopath]

wait wait....


Jessica agrees with Dogmeat on everything.







They MUST be dating!!!

















This post has been edited by Psykopath: Dec 2 2007, 11:04 PM

[Testm0nkey]

...TWO CATEGORY 5 HURRICANES...DEAN AND FELIX...MADE
LANDFALL DURING THIS SEASON FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE RECORDS BEGAN
IN 1851.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2007/tws/MIATWSAT_nov.shtml

The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period."

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/hurricanes.htm

the fact that hurricane chantal, gabriel, and jerry were of nontropical origins (and i think erin as well)

Erin was also one of the several storms that set records this hurricane season for the fastest intensifying as well

this year is also a La Nina year so the fact that we had some of the most intense storms is surprising (extreme weather events, warmer waters is associated with El Nino)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edit: i found my hardcopy of the IPCC, 2007 summary for policymakers (with references) "Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change" if anyone wants the statistics and reports for the predicted global, environmental, health, and human impacts

a global synthesis of studies in this assessment strongly demonstrates that the spatial agreement between regions of significant warming across the globe and the locations of significant observed changes in many systems consistent with warming is very unlikely to be due solely to natural variability of temperatures or natural variability of the systems

i also found my copy of a really great report about the melt in greenland

environmentalism is my "relegion"

[Hartmann]

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2007/tws/MIATWSAT_nov.shtml
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/hurricanes.htm

the fact that hurricane chantal, gabriel, and jerry were of nontropical origins (and i think erin as well)

Erin was also one of the several storms that set records this hurricane season for the fastest intensifying as well

this year is also a La Nina year so the fact that we had some of the most intense storms is surprising (extreme weather events, warmer waters is associated with El Nino)

So basically, what you just posted confirms what I said, the 'scientists' don't know what the hell is up. I don't see a record anywhere about storms that don't form in the tropics, in fact, there are plenty on record that formed in the North Atlantic. And what about winter storms that are basically hurricanes in cold weather form?

You know Test, I like you, I've always thought you were a cool chick but something seems up lately. You just want to be argumentative. I post a link, a quote, etc. and immediately it's "others disagree", well duh, people disagree and that's why I'm disagreeing with you. I do not follow the same ideas you do.

The links you posted are very factual but they give me no reason to believe that it's global warming causing the changes. That's what I'm getting at. The scientist I quoted works for a prestigious university with a great climatology and meteorology department (I think they do work for the hurricane center) and their belief is that it is simply shifting currents (which happen).

[Mommy]

wait wait....


Jessica agrees with Dogmeat on everything.







They MUST be dating!!!

in a previous life we dated... I suggest him to everyone. He makes a great sexual partner

[pebkac]

and theres a couple hundred who say its due in part to warming
hurricanes need warm water to form. temp is increasing/water temp is increasing. thus more strength for hurricanes. that isnt arguable

That's purely hypothetical (albeit a good hypothesis). Unfortunately, there's not enough data to correlate hurricanes to global warming.

[FORSAKENR320]

good luck guys.

cathryn is a master of taking half truths and bending them out of proportion to suit her own purposes. she's also very good about ignoring information that counters her arguements

[Mommy]

good luck guys.

cathryn is a master of taking half truths and bending them out of proportion to suit her own purposes. she's also very good about ignoring information that counters her arguements

hey, take it to the cathryn and brandon thread

[FORSAKENR320]

hey, take it to the cathryn and brandon thread

shut it..... you easy-bake oven for babies

[Mommy]

shut it..... you easy-bake oven for babies

you just wish you stirred the batter for the bun in my oven

[FORSAKENR320]

you just wish you stirred the batter for the bun in my oven

if you were my easy bake oven, i'd shatter your light bulb so that you could never bake again

[Hartmann]

This just in, a study says that divorce is bad for the environment: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/12...nt.html?ref=rss

I guess we now have a social issue and a moral issue with divorce.

[pebkac]

This just in, a study says that divorce is bad for the environment: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/12...nt.html?ref=rss

I guess we now have a social issue and a moral issue with divorce.

The title of that topic is a bit misleading. It should be titled "Cohabitation is better for the environment than living by yourself" which isn't exactly rocket science.

[Hartmann]

The title of that topic is a bit misleading. It should be titled "Cohabitation is better for the environment than living by yourself" which isn't exactly rocket science.

I know, I was being a smartass. The article is common sense but apparently we needed a "study" to prove this stuff.

[Mommy]

I saw this on the yahoo homepage and was gonna post it

[Divergent Realit...]

good luck guys.

cathryn is a master of taking half truths and bending them out of proportion to suit her own purposes. she's also very good about ignoring information that counters her arguements

thats why statistics are great.

they can be used to prove anything.

one of my favorites: