The Great and Abominable Church: Environmentalism

[_Coggins7]

Neither you nor fort have given me anything to refute (and I did refute your contention that there is a causal connection between CO2 and temperature rise during the 20th century. There is none at this time).

Try rehab again Mr. Coffee, but this time pay attention during group.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Neither you nor fort have given me anything to refute (and I did refute your contention that there is a causal connection between CO2 and temperature rise during the 20th century. There is none at this time).

Try rehab again Mr. Coffee, but this time pay attention during group.

Alright, since you made personal attack a part of the program...

F*** you very much, sport. Time to unload on you. A mod can split this to Telestial at their leasure.

Myself and others ahve in fact refuted you pathetic accounts and have provide evidence to the contry. You HAVE YET TO REFUTE A SINGLE WORD OF IT, you socksniffing boggtrotter. You are a lying piece of s***. You hide behind your wall of ignorance, respond by restating the same tired ass s***, and never once post any substantive counter-points.

I'm calling you out, Highspeed.

Either refute our evidence or admit defeat.

Your choice.

[_Coggins7]

Typical, typical leftist. Temper, temper. Now, place your right hand on your roach clip and your left hand on your copy of 101 Ways To Save The Planet For Dummies and repeat after me, "The Seventies are over, the Seventies are over, the Seventies are over..."

[Analytics]

Typical, typical leftist.

Typical right wing nut job.

Coggins, are you going to respond to my post and explain how your ideas on abortion don't contradict the accusations of a Mediterranean fertility cult and that of how we should govern ourselves? I think you're ignoring it because you know you're wrong and made a fool of yourself.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Typical, typical leftist. Temper, temper. Now, place your right hand on your roach clip and your left hand on your copy of 101 Ways To Save The Planet For Dummies and repeat after me, "The Seventies are over, the Seventies are over, the Seventies are over..."

Wow, typical dumbs*** "let's hide behind that wall of ignirance and deny everything" s***...

F*** you, son. You just lost.

[_Coggins7]

'll grant that I don't know whether or not AGW is true. I don't have the expertise to wade through the material and draw a conclusion either way. However, this thread is apparently about politics and neo-pagan religion so I will direct my remarks to that theory.

Fist off, I agree that people in general should be left to govern themselves. However, does that mean we should leave it up to them to decide whether to get an abortion or not? Just sayin'. And how does the abortion-loving left become associated with Mediterranean fertility cults? Isn't abortion kinda the opposite of fertility cults? Maybe if you tied it to human sacrifice cults you'd be a bit more believeable, but then again it still sounds a little ridiculous doesn't it?

What's a little ridiculous is that you apparently didn't read what I actually said in the post you are referring to. What I said there was that environmentalism is a kind of cross between ancient Mediterranean fertility cults and Marxism. I also said that convenience abortion was the sacrament of the Left. While most serious environmentalists, to the degree they are leftists, support convenience abortion, I didn't connect "the Left" with ancient fertility cults (although one could connect some major facets of it, based upon much of the attitudes and mentalities spawned by the sexual revolution) but environmentalism. Specifically, earth worship and pantheistic understandings of nature.

Indeed, since you brought it up, convenience abortion is very much a kind of human sacrifice in vitro; a sacrifice to the great god materialism.

Next, while I do believe we should work harder in protecting the environment, my concern is more that we are not being wise stewards of what we do have. For example, I support nuclear energy. I think we may need to make more improvements for waste disposal, but I think we can make some improvements there. Perhsps due to the Not In My Backyard syndrome, we could look into disposal on the sun (some have suggested the moon, but that is obviously more problematic).

Good points.

I believe that people are not very wise with their driving habbits. I think people should look more towards public transportation, bicycles, and so on. Some of the more populated cities tend to do this more. In fact, if we clean up electricty generation with nuclear power (and improve nuclear waste disposal), then we really have a win-win situation. We can cut down on traffic congestion, and very possibly cut down on energy costs, at least after an initial investment in improving waste disposal.

that's all well and good for people who live right in urban areas, but many live in the suburbs, well away from the city and its discontents. I know of no experience or example in which public transportation (such as the endless boondoggle of light rail) has ever done anything but increase congestion.

I also support the idea of creating cleaner-burning fuels, especially if those are generated from cleaner sources of electricity. Currently hydrogen cars are not going to help things because the fuel will likely be generated by oil which is the cheapest thing we have right now.

Nothing wrong with any of that, although I understand that hydrogen has a great deal of potential. Fossil fuel is going to be with us for quite some time to come, so as new technologies are developed over time, we need to look at the cost/benefit aspect of things in a realistic and sober way.

[_asbestosman]

What's a little ridiculous is that you apparently didn't read what I actually said in the post you are referring to. What I said there was that environmentalism is a kind of cross between ancient Mediterranean fertility cults and Marxism. I also said that convenience abortion was the sacrament of the Left. While most serious environmentalists, to the degree they are leftists, support convenience abortion, I didn't connect "the Left" with ancient fertility cults (although one could connect some major facets of it, based upon much of the attitudes and mentalities spawned by the sexual revolution) but environmentalism. Specifically, earth worship and pantheistic understandings of nature.

Are you really that stupid Coggins? You connected "The Left" with environmentalists and then connected environmentalists with fertility cults. You also connected both to the "adversary culture".

In any case you are still dodging my direct and critical blow where I pointed out your contradiction in hating the legality of abortion and yet you decry the left as "utterly inconsistent with that document’s [the constitution's] divine and timeless principles of individual liberty and self governance."

So, why is the pro-choice stance bad given your commitment to self-governance? You have contradicted yourself. Your conspiracy theory ideas are nonsense in part because they are self-contradictory.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Yap yap yap, liberals are evil, therefor anthing contradictory to what I say is wrong.

That's Coggins in a nutshell.


Guess what assbag... You failed to refute any of my or anyone elses debate points and you reinforced our point that your ENTIRE f*cking line of bullsh*t is one giant worthless ad hominem.

[_guy sajer]

I've read enough on this thread to conclude that Coggins7' position on global warming is driven by political ideology, which leads him to cherry pick his evidence to support previously determined conclusions.

My experience, however, also leads me to the conclusion that persons on the left of the political spectrum also, at times, politicize science, while carefully crafting and cherry picking the evidence to support their pre-determined conclusions. I have little doubt that there are some on the left who also purposely exaggerate the evidence for global warming to support political or other agendas.

This is only human nature.

As I said earlier, I am now convinced that the preponderance of evidence supports a conclusion of human-induced global warming, but I do not claim to understand the science all that well.

This is a topic on which it is very difficult for fair-minded laypersons to assess the evidence and wade through all the claims and counter-claims. Though I have reached a position, I am not 100% certain it is the correct one, and I remain open to reasoned arguments.

Fort has repeatedly asked Coggins to explain how he evaluated the evidence and reached the conclusion he did. But I do not recall Fort ever describing the process he went through to arrive at his (her??) conclusion. If you don't mind, Fort, I'd like to hear this. I extend the same request to others, made in the spirit of learning.

As for myself, I reached the my conclusion after a good deal of reading and reflection, including arguments by credible authorities who I believe were sufficiently objective to render a reasonable accounting/summary of the evidence.

In addition, my views on environmentalism have changed through the same process. I used to hold a doctrinaire anti-environmentalist view like Coggins, but now I've come to believe that humans have an obligation (and probably and ethical obligation and certainly a pragmatic one) to be responsible stewards of the environment. I am also convinced that taking care of the environment is necessary to create sustainable societies. I want my children, grandchildren, etc. to inherit a world that can sustain human life and activity, while providing all the wonders that nature can offer to society.

I am not a fanatic, I recognize there are tradeoffs, but I am now convinced that there do not always have to be tradeoffs between economic growth and environmentalism, and in the long run, the one actually depends on the other. Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" has convinced me of this.

I find Coggins' position to be perplexing and one if widely adopted, would put in peril the long-term sustainability of human society.

[_bcspace]

Just commenting on the thread title. Seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship just as communism/socialism is a counterfeit to the United Order.