Topic: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists - page 33. (Read 80461 times)

OK, we'll use your example instead.  Nuclear reactors.  What do the environmentalist folks say about that?

"No nuclear reactor has ever been built anywhere in the world without substantial government subsidy, and no reactor ever will be built without substantial government funding in future."
http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/NUCLEAR.html

I'm not qualified to say whether the reactors are "good" or "bad", just that it is likely that but for government taxation+subsidy, they wouldn't be either. 

I see you moronic blowhards are now parroting terms, albeit with spelling errors.

OKAY, OKAY..."ecosystem services and tropic cascades"...

Bet i can one up you on that, though.

• "cathrate guns"....try that one on...
• "morains from hell"
• "whipsawing the planet into snowball earth"

Why do I have this feeling the party is just starting?

lol...

Tell you what, if everyone promises not to drown me in a bucket of molasses and popcorn, here is what I'll do...

I'll play act actual, live radical environmentalist.  Proper slang, lingo, suggestions, etc.  Which these two antagonists are not hip to.  They are like lukewarm wannabe save-the-planet Goreheads.

Look at them go! Getting their ire up, crying about regulations, screaming about the men in blue suits, about the Man, and how he has the audacity to put them down! Look at them proclaiming how they know more than the thousands out their in the field and the lab, how they've got it all figured out! Look at them go! How defiant they are!

You forgot to say "ecosystem services" and "tropic cascades." It's not environmentalism unless you say it.

O'Neill colonies would be a decent experiment for the human race, but that'd take material from the Moon, and it would be lacking in essential elements like nitrogen and hydrogen.  There's some H at the pole in the ice deposits by Hermite, and some of the other areas of eternal cold deep in those polar craters, areas never touched by sunlight, but I have not heard anyone talking about N.

However as a thought experiment the O'Neill colony at the L4 or L5 point does have merit as a plausible method to go off planet.

No, do not take the approach that a useful idiot may be allowed to win.  You have fallen for a logical error here - the sweeping generalization, the over generalization.  Used as or part of premise to an argument, the results are nonsensical.

Thus, we cannot logically conclude that "environmental controls are good" or that they are "badly needed".

You can concede those points emotionally, but not logically.

In fact, this is evident in the prior comment about MBTE.  Were your sweeping generalization capable of being "true", then it would follow that MBTE was "good".  It was neither "good" nor "badly needed".  In fact it was the popular misconception of such being "badly needed" that enabled bad implementation of mandates for MBTE.



This is correct, but for some reason FirstAscent will not admit it.  Needs to just admit that the world needs an Overlord of the Environment, and he wants the job.

Humans can survive in space.

But not for very long.

Haven't you heard?  It will take "Urgent Action Now" to save the planet.  We don't have time for those studies studies and ridiculous research and you can bet that if Evil Exxon says don't do it, we gotta do it.  Just because we're a bunch of knuckle dragging lowbrow greenies doesn't mean we're not on a babbling brook to somewhere.

I won't stop until your shit-brown ignore button turns to blood--red 

Yes I did. In this and many other discussions. You're either too lazy to go back and read them, were too stupid to understand them, or too hardheaded and brainwashed to consider them.


As I keep pointing out, explaining, and repeating, the problem is not that they are bad or not needed. We're all perfectly happy to concede that enviromnental controlls are good, and are badly needed (Yay! You win!!!). The problem is the controller. Who they are, how they control, and what their incentives are. And ALL those things are totally fucked up. The ONLY way to get the level of environmental control that you want it for the entire planet to have a dictator with absolute control. Otherwise you'll have the oil loby in coontrol of drilling regulations, mining lobby in control of forests and rivers, chemical and coal lobby in control or air polution regulations, and so on. You know, how we have things now.


Although we wish that were so, we all know it's not.

You know that listing a few examples where doctors cause harm to their patients doesn't imply that the medical profession a a bastion of homicidal mania, right?

Nor does it imply that we'd live longer or better without doctors.
I'm not sure if more expertise on your part would have changed matters much, but your humility is a nice start
Oh, and, of course, thanks for the amusing anecdotes.  Go figure, even environmentalists & regulators screw up -- whoda thunked!

Edit:  As far as "which group's better at protecting the environment"?  Neither.  It's explodin' nuclear reactors.  After the whole Chernobyl thing, you know what the wildlife around there is like now?  Frickin' awesome.  I say we forget environmentalism & drain the cooling cores in all the nukes, fill the suckers up with heavy crude, and see what happens

Oh, heck... I'll dip a toe in this morass....  I'm no expert, but...

MTBE is an interesting case study of how the democratic process of using mob rule pushed around by some environmentalists really messed up our environment with the "best of intentions".

Private industry, those evil oil companies like Haliburton and the rest, do research on how to keep their customers from dieing and how to improve their products.  Their research came across this Methyl tert-butyl ether stuff, which it turns out, reduces air pollution and can reduce engine knocking.  
When they discovered it, all the environmentalists went nuts about it and started a big campaign to make laws to force refining companies put it in their gasoline mixtures.  They claimed that the oil companies wouldn't do it with out being forced, and so they needed to be forced, and laws were needed to do that.

The oil companies position was "more research is needed" and there needed to be "exposure assessments", they wanted to study the benefits and costs and all that, but the environmentalists saw through this as just a way for those evil oil companies to drag their feet and to save money and had their laws pushed through, at least in California.  These companies were obviously just hiding behind science as a way of stalling necessary regulation.

As it turns out, more research was needed...  Yes, it reduces air pollution, because the exhaust is heavier, so instead of being in the air where environmental forces break it up more swiftly, it goes into the ground water. (sun and water and such imbue air with a higher carrying capacity for particulate conversion to lower toxicity than in solution).

So now pretty much the whole state has this toxic stuff in their groundwater to some extent, thanks to the environmentalists and their government influence.  Enter the superfund and tax-payer supported cleanup...  and add some regressive sales taxes to make sure the poorest get hit by the cost.  Thanks to the environmentalists working through government...the government just gets bigger and more expensive, but the environment gets worse.

Then there are the environmentalists working through NGOs like Nature.org.  These folks maintain PRIVATE land trusts with inviolate covenants that run with the land preserving and maintaining wilderness corridors DONATED to them by INDIVIDUALS, forever.

Contrast that with the government taking of lands through the EPA which are then leased out to natural resource exploitation based on political contribution.  Or the Coastal Commission who will let you build whatever you want and bypass all the environmental restrictions if you donate some land to them that they might be able to use to do some resource extraction through one of their land leases.  Political power is an unwieldy weapon for the small and a jackhammer for the well connected or rich.  It is a force multiplier that few can afford.

Which group do a better job of protecting our environment?

Why my request is reasonable:

When I hear a hot gasbag constantly complain about control (as in environmental controls), I want to see him actually address the controls and state why they are bad or not needed.

Conclusion:

You are indeed a hot gasbag who just parrots memes and has no in depth knowledge on the subject.

Final words:

I'll take your refusal to not follow this line of conversation as the end of this conversation, and I don't want to hear more hot wind from you about how you could, but won't.

Because that's a ridiculous assertion.  You've demanded someone  pick a subject to discuss from a multitude of technical, regulatory and legal areas, as a way of getting out of the prior discussion, then asserted that if he does not do as you say, he/she has no "requisite domain knowledge", whatever that might mean.

But I'm already stated twice why you can't just make demands on people and then insult them if they don't do what you want.  In fact, that was the nature of the discussion you wished to get away from, wasn't it?  That you are not the proper agent to tell others how to act.

And here you are doing it again?

Except, of course, that it is only in your mind that you are the adult, and other people on the Internet are kids.  But were that true, you would be a perfect example of an adult that I'd recommend a kid not listen or pay attention to.  You'd be a near perfect example of someone that should be rebelled against, ridiculed, and ignored.  But since it is not true, we need to move to a reality orientation.

Why don't you just admit you don't have the requisite domain knowledge to feel comfortable entering into that argument?

I believe Nature itself is the biggest killer of all species... Nature kept replacing all those cool looking saber tooth felines with useless domestic cats. We need to do something about this. We need to boycott Nature and bring whatever animal was before the polar bear took over its territory.

Were can I hug a tree damn it!

Lol, and I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!

Ad hominem yet again.  Losing the argument?  The argument that you wanted to shift the discussion to?  Which would imply that you have the sole-designated discretion as to the subject of discussion?  That you are the Controller, and the Authority.