Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:27 pm
erykmynn wrote:Maybe they figure they'll be off-shore after sea level rise? Those aren't the people I was talking about anyways. IMO saying you're an environmentalist doesn't make you an environmentalist. If you're doing a bad job of being an environmentalist, then you're not an environmentalist.Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:erykmynn wrote:I hate to break it to you, but those people aren't environmentalists.patssox09 wrote:erykmynn wrote:whoa now buddy. lets not put environmentalists and AGW all in the same boat. sure, most AGW proponents are environmentalists. but there are AGW proponents that only give a shit about AGW, and there are enviros who are sick of the AGW-BS fest taking center stage.patssox09 wrote:erykmynn wrote:100 Reasons Not to Talk About Global Warming, Ever
No one would be talking about it if the environmentalists weren't trying to shove these down our throats.
you'll find quite a few of the latter right here on summitpost. do you hate the environment? if so what are you doing on an outdoors website?
now....
who taught the enviros that they have to shove shit down peoples throat to get things done? makes you wonder.
I actually am an environmentalist, a paleo-environmentalist. I'm all for conservation, more wilderness areas, protected areas, etc. Your typical environmentalist today will happily fill Yosemite Valley with concrete or chop down all the Redwoods if it that resulted in Cap and Trade and Hybrids for all.
Oh yes, they are. In Denmark the nature conservancy association used to throw a fit if the state wanted to build a single high-voltage line. Now they are in favour of putting hundreds of windmills in preserved wetlands!
A lot of environmentalists are realizing that AGW is de-personalizing, and taking emphasis away from more tangible issues. I know you like Nuclear, and the enviros did play a big role in the changed perception of that power source. But without 3 mile island and chernobyl, would they have had nearly as much shit in their diapers?
Three Mile Island was nothing, nobody was hurt. It was just media-caused mass hysteria. And because the Soviets could not build a better reactor than those at Chernobyl you would ban nuclear power? That would be like banning all cars because a rusty old Lada caused an accident! Already in the 1970s Science warned about the Soviets building nuclear power plants without sufficient containment.