Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why I don't trust environmentalists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why I don't trust environmentalists

    Because they run on campaigns like "save the trees" and then when the federal park service steps in out of concern to plant more trees, they sue the federal park service for interference. This just doesn't sit well with me. https://apple.news/AnQChawy_T0ea0aWIF3OJDQ
    "The National Park Service wants to replant sequoia groves in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, where wildfires in 2020 and 2021 inflicted lasting damage on the iconic sequoia forests. Environmentalists in California say it’s a huge mistake."
    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
    George Bernard Shaw

  • #2
    Because it wasn't their idea?
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
      Because they run on campaigns like "save the trees" and then when the federal park service steps in out of concern to plant more trees, they sue the federal park service for interference. This just doesn't sit well with me. https://apple.news/AnQChawy_T0ea0aWIF3OJDQ
      "The National Park Service wants to replant sequoia groves in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, where wildfires in 2020 and 2021 inflicted lasting damage on the iconic sequoia forests. Environmentalists in California say it’s a huge mistake."
      Hmm, it is almost as if they don't actually care about what is good for the environment but how much they can destabilize society. That sounds familiar.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

        Hmm, it is almost as if they don't actually care about what is good for the environment but how much they can destabilize society. That sounds familiar.
        It do, indeed.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
          Because they run on campaigns like "save the trees" and then when the federal park service steps in out of concern to plant more trees, they sue the federal park service for interference. This just doesn't sit well with me. https://apple.news/AnQChawy_T0ea0aWIF3OJDQ
          "The National Park Service wants to replant sequoia groves in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, where wildfires in 2020 and 2021 inflicted lasting damage on the iconic sequoia forests. Environmentalists in California say it’s a huge mistake."
          What reasons were given?
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeares Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Given the general level of incompetency of the feds, I'd probably agree with the greenies on this one.
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
              Given the general level of incompetency of the feds, I'd probably agree with the greenies on this one.
              That's... um... scary. But quite plausible.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                That's... um... scary. But quite plausible.
                Given that the point of the greenies here is that the sequoia needs high intensity fires and the policy of preventing every fire has been criticized in the past, I'd support more the greenies here.
                P1) If , then I win.

                P2)

                C) I win.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                  Given that the point of the greenies here is that the sequoia needs high intensity fires and the policy of preventing every fire has been criticized in the past, I'd support more the greenies here.
                  I would be more inclined to trust their position, if they hadn't shouted from the rooftops that these fires a bad and terrible results of global warming and they produce more greenhouse gases than necessary and they are terrible for the environment and even we humans caused the lightning induced wild fires etc etc etc.
                  A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                  George Bernard Shaw

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                    Because they run on campaigns like "save the trees" and then when the federal park service steps in out of concern to plant more trees, they sue the federal park service for interference. This just doesn't sit well with me. https://apple.news/AnQChawy_T0ea0aWIF3OJDQ
                    "The National Park Service wants to replant sequoia groves in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, where wildfires in 2020 and 2021 inflicted lasting damage on the iconic sequoia forests. Environmentalists in California say it’s a huge mistake."
                    Well since you have no more of a clue than I do as to who is in the right here, the NPS or the environmentalists, (who, btw, all seem to be in agreement) with respect to the best interests of the Sequoa groves, then why don't we just leave it up to the professionals, and the courts, who do have a clue. Does everything have to be a some kind d of wierd conspiracy?
                    Last edited by JimL; 11-29-2023, 10:48 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post

                      Well since you have no more of a clue than I do as to who is in the right here, the NPS or the environmentalists, (who, btw, all seem to be in agreement) with respect to the best interests of the Sequoa groves, then why don't we just leave it up to the professionals, and the courts, who do have a clue. Does everything have to be a some kind d of wierd conspiracy?
                      Given the climate hysteria by greenies and that they often reject nuclear, it's not illogical to be skeptical of the motivations of the groups.
                      P1) If , then I win.

                      P2)

                      C) I win.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                        Given the climate hysteria by greenies and that they often reject nuclear, it's not illogical to be skeptical of the motivations of the groups.
                        Given some of the causes that some have championed in the past, you have to be daft not to question them.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                          Given the climate hysteria by greenies and that they often reject nuclear, it's not illogical to be skeptical of the motivations of the groups.
                          Well the fact that you et.al. still consider it climate hysteria it's not at all illogical to be skeptical of your motivations. Environmentalists groups are dedicated, educated and united on the environment, and there is no big conspiracy going on between them against Sequoa trees. What are you thinking?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Well the fact that you et.al. still consider it climate hysteria it's not at all illogical to be skeptical of your motivations. Environmentalists groups are dedicated, educated and united on the environment, and there is no big conspiracy going on between them against Sequoa trees. What are you thinking?
                            It is plagued with alarmism and gross exaggerations. Having Al Gore and Greta Thunberg as their public faces has done them no favors.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              It is plagued with alarmism and gross exaggerations. Having Al Gore and Greta Thunberg as their public faces has done them no favors.
                              Well perhaps those of you who see it as alarmism are ignorant or simply don't care about future generations. Had we begun to deal with it way back when Jimmy Carter in the 70s and later Al Gore tried to make the issue better understood by the public we would be much further ahead of the game today in dealing with it. The right wingers, propagandists, the corporate lobbyists and the politicians they bought and payed for have misinformed the public and stalled our efforts in dealing with it for 50 years now.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2023, 06:19 PM
                              3 responses
                              33 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Catholicity, 11-28-2023, 12:14 PM
                              57 responses
                              409 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-17-2023, 11:35 PM
                              92 responses
                              529 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Diogenes  
                              Working...
                              X