Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Environmental jihad

Environmental jihad
May 10, 2009, 02:19:22 AM
Someone sent me this earlier:

Quote
2008 might set a record for the least number of sunspots recorded in a calendar year.

This is leading many scientists to predict that around 2020, the earth will face much cooler than normal temperatures. They cite evidence of similar conditions that occurred 1500 years ago in a period known as the Little Ice Age. The sunspots disappeared for nearly seventy years.

The lack of sunspots decrease solar winds which increases the clouds on earth. This in turn blocks out the sunís heat.

http://westernfrontamerica.com/2009/03/28/lack-sunspots-provide-solid-proof-earth-warming/

Idiots argue by, under the guise of being honest and taking control, re-defining the argument to be a subset of itself.

Global warming is a subset of the issue "massive human-caused damage to earth ecosystems, without tangible rewards from humanity except technology."

As you well known, dying empires reach a peak of power right before they fall... because they traded balance for power. So we did with technology.

The idiot who wrote this article is telling us the change in solar activity will cool the planet. This may be so, or it may not be.

The real issue remains unchanged: less land, no clear air or water, or no lack of human disturbance for animals and plants to thrive.

That's how ecocide happens.

Re: Environmental jihad
May 10, 2009, 05:48:10 PM
Reminds me of the "argument" where we're told that sea algae actually provides far more oxygen than the rainforests, so we could easily live without rainforests.

 

Re: Environmental jihad
May 10, 2009, 06:17:04 PM
In the popular culture there are now two opinion packages in regards to environment issues: 1) Against global warming and for liberalism 2) For capitalism and against global warming propaganda.

Things are just not that simple in real life, and we need to discuss real solutions, like removal of the  overpopulation problem and of harmful pollution, but they are all against such things, because we must sterilize people and stop the industry, which is vital for their welfare and economic growth.

Re: Environmental jihad
May 10, 2009, 09:58:06 PM
Nothing new imo, humans at large love things that release them from responsibility, this might be far fetched, but if humans lived longer, we as a species might see a more constructive outlook on living.


Re: Environmental jihad
May 11, 2009, 01:00:40 AM
In the popular culture there are now two opinion packages in regards to environment issues: 1) Against global warming and for liberalism 2) For capitalism and against global warming propaganda.

This is quite true, especially in the US.  Indeed, it is largely, if not entirely because of all that liberal baggage hanging from virtually every limb of the global-warming tree, that most sceptics reject it out of hand. Likewise, it seems, most liberal types buy into every "green" fad that comes down the pike because it fits neatly with that worldview's required "beliefs." Politics triumphs over critical reality once again...

Re: Environmental jihad
May 11, 2009, 08:12:59 AM
It is extremely frustrating that the whole "debate" (any idiot should be able to see that there is nothing debatable about it) regarding the destruction of the environment has been derailed into an argument about the existence and meaning of global warming. DMBM is right. By reducing the issue to this tiny, isolated point, the bullshit artists in charge of our civilization have managed to blind people to what is right in front of their bovine eyes: creeping ecodeath.

If global warming gets debunked, it might be the biggest strawman to get toppled in the whole of human history. Off the top of my head, anyway.

Re: Environmental jihad
May 11, 2009, 02:55:23 PM
great topic.  I finally came to this realization, myself, over the past few months.  Forgive me if I'm just repeating what you all have said but the liberals created their own downfall by banking on proving global warming to justify why we need to stop a more general problem (pollution/ecocide).  Here is where our reliance on science fails.  Of course the "conservatives" simply say, "hey we only have statistics going back so many years, but the earth itself has existed for millions of years, who's not to say that this isn't just the natural cycle of the earth?"  And now we have a stalemate.  How about an AESTHETIC justification for why we need to stop pollution/ecocide?  Smoke stacks, trash on the side of roads, trucks emitting black smoke, giant cities and their ghettos, etc. all look like shite, and they smell like shite - what more justification do we need?  use your instincts.
His Majesty at the Swamp / Black Arts Lead to Everlasting Sins / Diabolical Fullmoon Mysticism / Oath of Black Blood / Privilege of Evil / Dawn of Possession / In Battle There is No Law / Thousand Swords / To Mega Therion

Re: Environmental jihad
May 11, 2009, 06:47:47 PM
How about an AESTHETIC justification for why we need to stop pollution/ecocide?  Smoke stacks, trash on the side of roads, trucks emitting black smoke, giant cities and their ghettos, etc. all look like shite, and they smell like shite - what more justification do we need?  use your instincts.

And that is why Nietzsche became an aesthetist/Romanticist. Good point. I think the corollary to it is to stop arguing over global warming, but mention "ecocide" as the issue. Global warming, whether true or not, is a red herring!

Re: Environmental jihad
May 12, 2009, 03:06:06 AM
How about an AESTHETIC justification for why we need to stop pollution/ecocide?  Smoke stacks, trash on the side of roads, trucks emitting black smoke, giant cities and their ghettos, etc. all look like shite, and they smell like shite - what more justification do we need?  use your instincts.

Good insight, man. I think a lot of people got into the "green" lifestyle (even though it's mostly illusory, moralistic, transient, PC nonsense) because of aesthetic reasons, not scientific. Not to undermine either, but "logic" and "science" are often light years behind (in realization and utility) on such simple things -- our "instincts" and "intuition" are indeed still useful for many things, this being one.

"It is not the language of painters but the language of nature which one should listen to, the feeling for the things themselves, for reality, is more important than the feeling for pictures." - Van Gogh