How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

stlouisdude
Posts: 410
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by stlouisdude » December 5th, 2016, 8:29 pm

I postulate that my path from full blown and unapolegetic supporter of environmentalists to complete disdain for these people is not an uncommon trajectory. I freely admit that upon my first login to this site, I had no doubts that the personnel at local nature centers knew best and that organizations such as "Defenders of Wildlife" had nothing but the best of intentions. The fact is, it's only been six years and change since I've joined this site and my opinions have done a 360! The people I held in high regard, I often now hold in high contempt. I am sure I must not be alone in this opnion and the more facts I gather, the stronger my opinion on the subject grows. My opinion of people who are classified as scientists remains neutral, the older they are, the more I find I tend to find their opinions fair and balanced, but of the type of people that call themselves environmentalists, I tend to find them as relatively useless individuals willing to say or do anything regardless of the ethical implications.

User avatar
Jeroen Speybroeck
Posts: 815
Joined: June 29th, 2011, 12:56 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Jeroen Speybroeck » December 6th, 2016, 12:19 am

stlouisdude wrote:I postulate that my path from full blown and unapolegetic supporter of environmentalists to complete disdain for these people is not an uncommon trajectory. I freely admit that upon my first login to this site, I had no doubts that the personnel at local nature centers knew best and that organizations such as "Defenders of Wildlife" had nothing but the best of intentions. The fact is, it's only been six years and change since I've joined this site and my opinions have done a 360! The people I held in high regard, I often now hold in high contempt. I am sure I must not be alone in this opnion and the more facts I gather, the stronger my opinion on the subject grows. My opinion of people who are classified as scientists remains neutral, the older they are, the more I find I tend to find their opinions fair and balanced, but of the type of people that call themselves environmentalists, I tend to find them as relatively useless individuals willing to say or do anything regardless of the ethical implications.
360° = 0°

daniel
Posts: 108
Joined: July 2nd, 2013, 9:29 am
Location: California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by daniel » December 6th, 2016, 7:44 am

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:360° = 0°
Thank you :)

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » December 7th, 2016, 1:15 pm

George Carlin, brilliant and on the money.

George Carlin - Saving Endangered Species is Wrong!


User avatar
mtratcliffe
Posts: 532
Joined: January 19th, 2014, 4:34 pm
Location: Springfield, VA

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by mtratcliffe » December 8th, 2016, 5:54 pm

WSTREPS wrote:George Carlin, brilliant and on the money.

George Carlin - Saving Endangered Species is Wrong!

A solid, evidence-based analysis of the subject. Where did he get his degree from?

User avatar
Antonsrkn
Posts: 971
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 1:38 pm
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Antonsrkn » December 8th, 2016, 6:07 pm

So what do you define as an environmentalist?

The dictionary definition is pretty broad:
en·vi·ron·men·tal·ist
1.
a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment.
synonyms: conservationist, preservationist, ecologist, nature lover; More

I don't believe that you're saying you hold in contempt anyone who is concerned with the protection of the environment. So what is it that you're getting at?

User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1469
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:12 pm
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Fieldnotes » December 8th, 2016, 8:39 pm

:shock:

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1200
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Bryan Hamilton » December 8th, 2016, 9:09 pm

Can you present some more evidence that the climate is "actually cooling"? I'm not willing to take Mark Levine's word on this.

The climate is changing due to combustion of fossil fuels, generally warming at a predictable rate. This warming is having a litany of ecological consequences rising sea levels, warming oceans, and loss of glaciers. In terms of biodiversity, there will be winners and losers, but overall we are losing biodiversity as a result of human caused climate change. Call me a lemming if you must but lemmings are cool and feed a lot of snowy owls, a relationship intimately related to climate change.


https://www.ipcc.ch/
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimf ... of_like_i/

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1200
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Bryan Hamilton » December 9th, 2016, 12:00 pm

Fieldnotes,

Out of curiosity, why do you delete some of your posts?

MCHerper
Posts: 443
Joined: September 22nd, 2012, 5:13 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by MCHerper » December 9th, 2016, 6:43 pm

Stlouisdude, I'm interested in hearing some examples of what happened to bring you to feel this way?

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4252
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » December 9th, 2016, 7:20 pm

Bryan, perhaps it is a way of making a statement and then making sure it isnt a permanent one, in the case of alienation of potential customer base of a cottage industry type pursuit.

a person may harangue a person for their political beliefs, yet wouldnt turn down their money.

I cant think of any other reason why someone wouldnt remain accountable to their own strongly expressed comment.

User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1469
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:12 pm
Location: Orange County, CA
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Fieldnotes » December 10th, 2016, 2:18 pm

Bryan Hamilton wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do you delete some of your posts?
Sometimes I post after tossing a couple down. Then in the morning, I realize, i don't want to bother explaining or debating. I feel, it would be ruder to post something and never respond than to delete it. I suppose its kind'a like "buyers remorse." And as Kelly put it, I'm not a follower of political correctness and I don't need that permanently record. Perhaps my son will be the leader of the Free-world someday, heck, if Trump did it, anyone, accept Hillary can do it. But more than not being PC, I realize later, I just don't want to follow up to post-after-post. Then a month later, bam, its back at the top of the forum, and things start all over again.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4252
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » December 10th, 2016, 3:41 pm

:thumb:

That honesty is fantastically refreshing

Tamara D. McConnell
Posts: 2248
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:42 am

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Tamara D. McConnell » December 11th, 2016, 8:14 am

That honesty is fantastically refreshing
I agree!

Coluber Constrictor
Posts: 1164
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:25 am
Location: Mobile, AL

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Coluber Constrictor » December 11th, 2016, 3:16 pm

this thread gave me cancer.

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by FunkyRes » May 21st, 2017, 8:59 pm

I use to be a human-caused climate change denier. Circa 2000 or so.

I no longer deny we are causing it. We are, and it is bad, very bad.

Not sure when I switched.

Coluber Constrictor
Posts: 1164
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:25 am
Location: Mobile, AL

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Coluber Constrictor » August 22nd, 2017, 3:19 pm

this is how I've come to disdain herpers

User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4731
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Brian Hubbs » August 24th, 2017, 6:10 pm

Don't worry...Trump is going to fix everything. He's going to make America great again. It's going to be Amazing and Terrific...and I'm sure the new coal mines and steel mills will have no effect on global warming... :roll:

So, I got here late...what is the point of this thread anyway? :|

User avatar
ebit123
Posts: 85
Joined: August 19th, 2014, 8:31 pm
Location: North Providence, RI

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by ebit123 » August 28th, 2017, 11:53 am

I was hoping the OP would come back and elaborate. All I can think is some in the field of environmentalism may go in with pure scientific intentions, but end up being swayed by politics or consumed with bureaucratic matters, and he/she had negative interactions with such people

User avatar
John Martin
Posts: 515
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 9:57 pm
Location: North end of Lake Okeechobee, Florida

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by John Martin » August 30th, 2017, 11:44 pm

Coluber Constrictor wrote:this thread gave me cancer.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
zonata
Posts: 18
Joined: June 18th, 2010, 3:52 am
Location: Kern County, CA
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by zonata » September 26th, 2017, 4:01 pm

HSUS & PETA are targeting "ALL" pets, pet owners, and breeders! These two radical animal rights groups and others have been attacking our American Freedoms for a long time using scare tactics (including advocating TERRORIST activities like arson by setting fires and bombing businesses), falsified reports, and phony research to get our government to unfairly strip us of our rights to own pets!

THINK WE'RE KIDDING? Years ago they tried to get House Resolution 669 passed that would have change how the US government classifies animals that are not native to the United States. Animals such as many Reptiles and Amphibians (from around the world); Hamsters (Syria); Gerbils (Asia, India, Africa); Guinea Pigs (Peru); Chinchillas (Chile, Bolivia, Argentina and Peru); Tropical Birds like Parrots, Parakeets, Cockatiels, even Finches (from around the world); both Tropical and Saltwater Fish; many Invertebrates like pet Tarantulas; and many others would have been effected by this bill had it passed and it would have made YOU & YOUR CHILDREN an instant criminal for just having them

THEY WANT TO KILL THE ENTIRE PET INDUSTRY, (INCLUDING CATS & DOGS) PUTTING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS OUT OF WORK!

Many of these far left liberal nut jobs have infiltrated many of our government's agencies like the USFS, BLM, NPS, USF&W, EPA and now work for them while destroying our liberties and freedoms from within! Others have backed many "Environmental Groups" that also want to keep hard working Americans from being able to make out an honest living from a MULTI-MILLION dollar pet industry.

I have come to realize that there is a "HUGE DIFFERENCE" between the Corrupt Cultish Environmental Movement and what I refer to as Conservation.

Environmental groups like PETA, HSUS, EARTH LIBERATION FRONT, Green Peace, and Earth First (to name but a few) and,...
Legitimate and Law abiding Conservation Groups who actually care for both the animals and the habitat they live in "ARE NOT THE SAME!"

Conservation Groups like Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation, Quail Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International, Trout Unlimited, The Federation of Flyfishers, have done more to clean up once destroyed habitat and reintroduce many native species back into their historical range where they belong then any "So-called animal rights group has, or even would do.

Many of these true heroes working for conservation groups have worked diligently to both purchase property (improving nesting grounds, watersheds, shelter, and availability of natural food sources for "ALL" species of animals) and on property already owned for the enjoyment of not just hunters and fishermen, but for all present and future generations of Americans who enjoy the great outdoors!

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4252
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » September 26th, 2017, 5:53 pm

Peta, Humane Society etc etc dont really care or know about reptiles.

We are all they got and its either wishy washy "I dont have thoughts on it one way or another.."

Or a hannibal lecterism of inert brain pathways and salivating consumption.

We are all they got and we need to do it better.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4252
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » September 26th, 2017, 7:46 pm

To not surpass the condition that we live in a market dominated society and allow that to be a preoccupation in the value grid of decisions about wild animals, while calling out the "abominations" done to scientific integrity shows how out of touch with original reality some peoples positions are.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4252
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » September 27th, 2017, 12:49 pm

Hey I really didnt mean to be mean spirited about the Hannibal Lecter personification.

The character of Dr Lecter was intelligent, well respected professionally and piously convinced of his own rationale - his "prey" were only those he deemed lesser than, and expendable.

Emotions as a capacity arent bad or weak, they allow us to detect, resist, intervene and act in relationship with knowledge.

The more capacities the better imo

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3589
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » September 27th, 2017, 10:31 pm

Kelly Mc wrote:Peta, Humane Society etc etc dont really care or know about reptiles.

It kills me when people call them "environmentalists". There is a giant gap between "environmentalists" and "animal rights activists" like those two. It's technically possible to be both at the same time, but it's not automatic or even natural.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4252
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » September 28th, 2017, 11:17 am

Its tricky. Lables, Groups.

There is a real opportunity for examining definitions and intention in the herp genre.

Alot of hitchhiking on ideologies takes place and none of them fit well.

vontrek
Posts: 2
Joined: April 16th, 2012, 8:07 am

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by vontrek » February 12th, 2018, 10:52 am

Guess it is federal & state laws which are designed to protect reptile exploitation. But without a requirement for a bio-impact survey ordered before obtaining a construction permit, a housing addition can be built right on top of a hibernation den. Seen it happen around Kansas. Then over the years the residents are upset about copperheads and rattlesnakes showing up on their lawns.

I am setting up a service for capture and relocating snakes around my area. Have to obtain some kind of permit myself from the state I believe. I have not set up a website as yet but am working on it since spring is when people will be calling.

craigb
Posts: 595
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by craigb » February 12th, 2018, 11:37 am

Good for you Vontrek....
You should do well, and you will actually be saving the animals you relocate.
At least you are trying. Police, Fire, and Animal Control really like turning snake removal over to professionals.
I am truly not joking. They are seldom trained, and their time could be spent doing something they know how to do. Keep all you paperwork up to date. Get a business license in what ever area you are going to work. Write receipts and keep copies. Go by Police, Fire, and Animal Control agencies and make an appointment with an administrator. Go dressed professionally and sell yourself. Give them a hand full of business cards and let them know your hours. All of them hate to work at night and on holidays.

Let me clarify from experience. The administrators of those agencies hate to pay overtime or for extra personnel nights and holidays.

Look and act professional in the public eye.

Good Luck... :thumb:

User avatar
JuanDowe
Posts: 16
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 12:02 pm
Location: Drumgooland Lower, County Down, Norlin Ulster

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by JuanDowe » March 22nd, 2018, 3:10 pm

"......Guess it is federal & state laws which are designed to protect reptile exploitation. But without a requirement for a bio-impact survey"

:shock: Wha countrae da ye live in citybhoy? Do ye suck Boris's or Gary's? Those are onlae twa levels. Google international level protection. Ta mae you're one step above a provo. Maybe ya need to reconsider your alliance with such plastic hunns before you decide to live behind the wire. Or other than that, if ye assosiate with Johnny Adiar, move ta Germany.

Then there is the local level (I.E. state and national park regs).
PS. Stop huffing the magic dragon or watch yer jackboot round me people.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1EJ ... gugoFftZLo


https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1EJ ... D9DcACPysE


Keep this forum clear of stupidity please. Alas we have enough of it.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » January 13th, 2019, 5:29 am




Ernie Eison

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3589
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » January 13th, 2019, 6:49 am

JuanDowe wrote:Keep this forum clear of stupidity please. Alas we have enough of it.
And then Ernie follows by posting an actual White Supremacist NeoNazi murderer and church arsonist spouting the most ridiculous racist drivel as the response to environmental issues. :roll:



(the worst part is not just that video is full of logical fallacies, but the white nationalist video-maker is actually a pagan environmental extremist who would hate Ernie's lifestyle :lol: He'll probably take advantage of that to be simultaneously both racist and anti-environmentalist. :cry: )

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » January 17th, 2019, 3:49 am

Its important to note. When viewing various environmental statistical information and writings. Especially that which pertains to the evil US and its big money corporations oil, farming etc. To understand who is behind these studies and why they choose their targets, how environmentally motivated warrior groups create big money making machines of their own. The strategic use of manufactured falsehoods and statistical information skewed by their favorite girl. Little Mis-Information. "A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies." - Alfred Lord Tennyson

Ernie Eison

Ps Its not hard to predict how some possessing lesser intelligence who view this video will try to compose rebuttals based on literal interpretaion.These types of responses completely miss or intentionally misdirect from the deeper and more meaningful points made.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3589
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » January 17th, 2019, 3:59 am

So he posts a video by an actual criminal White Supremacist, someone who has been found guilty in a court of law of murder, church-burning, and inciting racial hatred, and he doesn't even apologize but just doubles-down and keeps going?

Literally says we need to see "who is behind" these things when a WHITE SUPREMACIST was behind the awful logical fallacies he just posted?

Ernie, I have friends who are scientists who work for the oil industry who tell me that even within the industry itself practically everyone believes in Global Warming and believes that our fossil fuels are a major contributing factor. I have brilliant friends in India who spend their lives helping local farmers adjust to the climate change they see occurring already. I and everyone else here have seen the environmental destruction wrought by development with our own eyes.

Sam Sweet just presented a paper that shows snake finds dropping by 90% within his study areas across all species in just three decades. Do you believe that animal populations aren't dropping across thousands of species and in the vast majority of locales? Do you believe that hundreds of species aren't facing crises as we speak? You might not do much field herping anymore, but most of us do. I work in California, in Oregon, in Thailand, in the Philippines, in India, in Bangladesh, there is NOWHERE I go where modern society hasn't driven intense environmental destruction.

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1200
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Bryan Hamilton » January 18th, 2019, 9:23 am

Ernie roo roo back on the forum!

I imagine a gollum like creature, sitting in the dark for the last 8 months, plotting its response, watching all the you tube, reading all the breitbart. Then risiNG lIKE A PHOENIX TO Post something SO sMaRt, Something so BRilLIant, there can be NO DOUBT!
Its not hard to predict how some possessing lesser intelligence who view this video will try to compose rebuttals based on literal interpretaion.
The best part... in a sentence questioning the intelligence of the haters and doubters, you make spelling error. Classic and probably a trap no doubt to capture the feeble minded. Always two steps ahead and three squares to the right.

You're a forum treasure Ernie roo roo. Welcome back.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » February 3rd, 2019, 3:55 pm



Ernie Eison

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3589
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » February 3rd, 2019, 6:08 pm

While better than the White Supremacist crap you posted in the previous video, it didn't help your cause that the last video was covered with "Donald Trump2020" and "MAGA" tags.

I looked it up and that "conference" was thrown by the Heartland Institute, a conservative American think tank previous famous for helping Phillip Morris try to convince the public that cigarette smoke isn't bad for people. The signatories of their petitions comprise a tiny percentage of the world's scientists and not exactly a very credible group.
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism. In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[3][4]:233–34[5] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[6][7] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[8] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[9]


However, Heartland's extremist tactics (billboards equating environmentalists with murderous psychopaths) and positions (full-on denialism) have led even their corporate donors to mostly abandon them now. In an era where even the oil industry's own scientists have accepted the global warming consensus, it's gotten tougher to make money on the denialist racket.
The ultra-conservative Heartland Institute admitted it was in financial crisis on Wednesday, with the flight of corporate donors making it difficult to pay staff or cover the costs of its annual conference aimed at debunking climate science.

In a speech at the close of this year's climate conference, Heartland's president, Joseph Bast, acknowledged that a provocative ad campaign comparing believers in human-made climate change to psychopaths had exacted a heavy cost.

However, Bast also attributed Heartland's current problems to his weakness in financial management.

"These conferences are expensive, and I'm not a good fundraiser so as a result I don't raise enough money to cover them. We really scramble to make payroll as a result to cover these expenses," Bast said.

"If you can afford to make a contribution please do. If you know someone, if you've got a rich uncle or somebody in the family or somebody that you work with, please give them a call and ask them if they would consider making a tax-deductible contribution to the Heartland Institute."

The organisation has lost at least $825,000 in funds from corporate donors although Heartland also claims to have attracted 800 new small donors. Heartland also came in for bruising criticism from its own allies – a number of whom faulted Bast for failing to consult Heartland's colleagues or board members about the ads in advance.
Among ultra-conservative activists, the billboard controversy has shaken confidence in Heartland's ability to serve as the hub of the climate contrarian network. It has also raised doubts about Bast's leadership. Bast is listed on Heartland's website as its earliest employee. His wife is also employed at Heartland.

But Heartland was facing a cash crunch even before the Gleick expose.

Nine employees were due to be laid or take pay cuts in 2011, according to the budget documents obtained by Gleick.

This year's conference was a drastically shrunken version of earlier Heartland gatherings, which attracted up to 800 attendees and ran several concurrent sessions. Those events were also lucrative for Heartland, accounting for half of its non-fundraising events revenue, according to documents obtained through deception by the scientist Peter Gleick.

At this year's gathering in Chicago, fewer than 170 turned up for the gala opening banquet, and the conference only managed to eke out one session at a time, and brought in relatively few outside speakers.

And the only member of Congress to attend this year, conservative Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, used his speech to criticise Heartland for the billboard.

"We can continue to win these debates out of the strength of our arguments without recourse to unsavoury tactics that only serve to distract from our message," he said. "Let's not get off message."

Heartland initially had not even planned to hold a conference. But after the organisation was shaken last February by the internet sting exposing its donor list and fundraising strategy, Heartland changed its mind.

However, Bast said Heartland may stop putting on the conferences. "I hope to see you at a future conference, but at this point we have no plans to do another."

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » February 4th, 2019, 5:12 pm



Thomas Sowell provides a concise analogy that not only applies to "Climate change" but is found across the board in todays unhinged scientific community. Ernie Eison ………………..and to add,


There is no consensus that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that requires "urgent" action. One of the most common talking points used by global warming alarmists is that 97 percent of scientists agree that it's man-made and unless action is taken, armageddon will ensue. This is patently false, as Joseph Bast and Dr. Roy Spencer explain, this number comes from three sources and they're all riddled with errors

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1200
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Bryan Hamilton » February 4th, 2019, 6:27 pm

I hope they are paying you something for your lies Ernie.

Dr. Bryan Hamilton (since that title seems to mean something to you)

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » February 5th, 2019, 9:31 am

I see a number of issues that emerged in this thread.
1) Environmentalism / Conservation
2) Scientific integrity. (Can there be a difference between scientists that work governments versus scientists that are independent of government?)
3) U.N. credibility and integrity. (Is the U.N. and IPCC truly impartial, without bias, and void of political and financial conflicts of interest?)
4) What can the ‘history of science’ tell us? (Has anyone looked into the issue of scientific consensus?)
5) Disagreeing without being disagreeable
6) Have you done your homework? (Have you reviewed the scientific literature pertaining to the different sides of the climate change issue?)

An unending fountain of information can accessed by Google searches. With one exception, I will confine my comments to the issue of ‘homework’. With respect to #4, when I Googled “History of Science when consensus of scientists were wrong”, there were a number of links. Of interest may be the following: Scientific Consensus Is Almost Never Wrong — Almost | Inside Science

#6) ‘Homework’? I do not believe all individuals have really done enough homework on the issue of climate change. It is essential to examine the evidence contained in the scientific literature. That is, information in the mainstream and social media often can be ‘tainted’ and unreliable.

And I include myself as not really doing my homework. The reason is because to do a decent job would take a very large amount of time. Secondly, I do not possess the background necessary to understand much of the technical aspects that occur in the scientific literature on climate change.

But I have learned not to take a firm position on issues until I have at least tried to investigate and understand all sides. And although I have done some ‘homework’, I do not have sufficient understanding to have formed a firm position one way or the other on global warming and its underlying cause. And it is just as apparent that some individuals in this thread have not really investigated all sides (researched the scientific literatures) before forming their position on climate change.

So with respect to doing your ‘homework’, are you aware there is an organization of highly qualified and respected scientists that because they do not work for governments, they are not prone to be influence by financial or political considerations? Then one has to ask if they have financial ties to the fossil fuel industry? I haven’t explored that point.

At any rate, the NIPCC is such an organization (see below). And much of their published research contains evidence that contradicts the UN’s IPCC position on climate change?

Thus if you really do your ‘homework’ and view all sides of the global warming issue, it is imperative you review the research and review articles produced by some of the NIPCC scientists. If you explore as far as I have, you should note there appears to be valid scientific evidence that contradicts the prevailing ‘consensus’ about the cause of climate change.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
About
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.
NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singer’s retirement from the University of Virginia. NIPCC is currently a joint project of SEPP, The Heartland Institute, and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
NIPCC has produced 13 reports to date:
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’
Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
Written Evidence Submitted to the Commons Select Committee of the United Kingdom Parliament
NIPCC vs. IPCC
Chinese Translation of Climate Change Reconsidered
Global Warming Surprises: Temperature data in dispute can reverse conclusions about human influence on climate
Data versus Hype: How Ten Cities Show
Sea-level Rise Is a False Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geologist The sun not CO2 drives Earth s climate 1 22 19
January 22, 2019 by Robert
Devastating news for human-caused global warming proponents.
“The sun, not CO2, drives Earth’s climate,” says Dr Roger Higgs, long-time consultant geologist and sedimentologist.
Higgs bases his statement on four vital points:
Global warming and cooling are driven by the sun, specifically by the solar-sourced Interplanetary Magnetic Field, which regulates incoming cosmic rays, which in turn govern cloudiness and thus global temperature (the breathtakingly elegant Svensmark Theory).
Global temperature oscillations lag 25 years behind the causative solar magnetic fluctuations. This 25-year lag is due to ocean thermal inertia in remarkable agreement with the 15-20-year time lag estimated by Abdussamatov et al. 2012).
The idea that CO2 is the main climate driver, despite its scarcity in Earth’s atmosphere, ie 400 parts per million, near plant-starvation level, contrasts starkly with CO2’s 1,000 to 4,000 ppm levels for most of the last 600 million years.
Earth is now cooling. Global warming ended in 2016: proof that the sun, not CO2, drives Earth’s climate. Moreover, from AD500 to 1200, CO2 levels were anti-correlated with Earth’s temperature.
“The reality is that man’s industrialization just happened to occur in a period of solar-driven warming, a mere coincidence, causing governments to needlessly spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on CO2-reduction efforts,” says Dr Higgs.
See entire paper, with several graphs:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ’s_climate
Here’s some information about Dr. Higgs
http://www.geoclastica.com/BudeGeoWalks

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3589
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » February 6th, 2019, 9:23 am

So with respect to doing your ‘homework’, are you aware there is an organization of highly qualified and respected scientists that because they do not work for governments, they are not prone to be influence by financial or political considerations? Then one has to ask if they have financial ties to the fossil fuel industry? I haven’t explored that point.
I can address that issue for you at least in part already. The NIPCC that you speak of is a joint project of three groups:

The Heartland Institute
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
The Science & Environmental Policy Project

The Heartland Institute is the same conservative policy lobbying group that promote the stuff Ernie was posting earlier. They aren't a scientific outfit, they just push lobbying info on any issue within the conservative agenda (such as supporting Phillip Morris for a substantial time in trying to deny any harmful effects of secondhand smoking). The Heartland Institute refuses to disclose its funders but tax receipts have shown that some donations have been made by ExxonMobile and the Charles Koch Foundation. However, I think most of their funding comes from conservative policy advocates generally rather than the oil industry specifically.

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a family-run organization focused that refuses to disclose their financial backers, claiming that is irrelevant. However, tax records do show that ExxonMobile and Peabody Energy were both funding it at one point. They don't seem to do anything other than argue against climate change.

The Science & Environmental Policy Project is a Fred Singer project. He's a well-known contrarian - among others he has downplayed the connection between UV-B radiation and skin cancer, claimed there was no connection between secondhand smoke and skin cancer, claimed that banning CFCs would hurt the economy without improving the ozone layer, and claimed that satellites don't show any evidence of global warming. In several of those issues history has proven him categorically wrong - banning CFCs substantially improving the ozone layer without any noticeable impact on the economy, satellite data does show global warming, and even tobacco companies now acknowledge the risks of secondhand smoke. SEPP has received donations from ExxonMobile and Fred Singer himself has worked as a paid consultant for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal.


Much of that energy-industry support is now historic, however. Most oil companies have moved away from actively fighting claims of climate change. What I've been told by friends who work in the industry is that even scientists who work for oil companies and their associated organizations have accepted the public consensus on global warming. That is one reason that the major oil companies supported the recent Paris Accords. Nowadays the main people who fight against the mainstream view of climate change are tied to conservative politics more so than energy companies.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » February 6th, 2019, 9:00 pm

The scandal known as "Climate-Gate" where leaked emails showed that a cabal of world-renowned scientists discussed hiding the lack of warming because it wasn't the outcome they wanted, was documented. FACT> Alarmist scientists weren't able to get the results they wanted, so they tampered with the data. This has become all-too-FAMILIAR in todays world of twisted truth science. Ernie Eison

Climategate: 'Scientists would rather change facts than their theories'


User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3589
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » February 6th, 2019, 9:39 pm

Ernie is posting RT as a source now. He's hit the holy trinity of misinformation in this thread - White Supremacists, industry propaganda, and Russian state media. :lol:

He's not even trying to look logical - in one comment he posts a group lauding that they are free of government influence, in the next he posts one propped up by the Russian state. :D


And "climate-gate"? Anyone who actually cares can research it for themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."

"Former Republican House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert called the attacks a "manufactured distraction", and the dispute was described as a "highly orchestrated" and manufactured controversy"

That's a Republican saying that.


It's a good read - the conspiracy theorists had to literally lie about the content of the emails in order to create a controversy, like taking a sentence about short-term energy flows and claim it was a sentence about overall climate change, taking a discussion about tree ring divergence as if it was a secret when it's a well-known issue, or quoting a scientist talking about a neat trick out of context as if he was talking about manipulating data when he was actually talking about a nice way of presenting data.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » February 7th, 2019, 10:57 am

What we see to an alarming (overwhelming) degree in todays world of degenerated science is ‘research’ reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.” The motive as its so aptly stated by the research scientist in the video below. Scientist are looking to jump on board the gravy train. Amen. Ernie Eison

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » February 13th, 2019, 12:25 pm

Jonathan,
I am acutely aware of of how federal bureaucracies work having once been an employee with the USDA. You don’t dare rock the boat / make waves if you value having a chance for a step pay increase, promotions, etc.

Consequently, I am inclined to give more credence to the research findings from scientists that are not employed by governments nor dependent on government grants. And because global warming / climate change research is ongoing, I believe it is wise to wait to see what transpires over time.

In keeping with my own advice about doing ‘homework’, during the past few days, I have done more searching. I Googled the following: “Are there any governmental scientists that have published research on global warming that does no support man made causation?”. I came up with some links I had not seen before during my prior searches. I urge everyone to read the very long essay in the second link.

Richard F. Hoyer

The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics
What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3589
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » February 13th, 2019, 5:46 pm

Richard, do you see how pursuing the issue in the manner you have largely predetermines the result? If rather than global warming the issue had been evolution, or the 9/11 attacks, would you also have been able to find a dissenter with scientific credentials if that was all you looked for? As is the nature of humanity, when there are millions of people in a given profession and X% of all humans feel an innate need to push a contrarian agenda regardless, how will explicitly pursuing the contrarian view leave you with anything more than the contrarian view? At what point would that change regardless of the evidence?

And leaving your views on government behind for a moment, how do you deal with the fact that even scientists working for the fossil fuel industry by and large believe the scientific consensus on global warming?

And then if we left global warming behind for a second, even if global warming didn't exist, would you believe that water and air pollution are extremely serious issues? Habitat destruction due to mining and development? Do you believe that habitat loss and biodiversity loss are serious issues right now or not - when Sam Sweet posts about 90% drops in snake sightings and scientists around the world are posting 50% drops or higher in insects, birds, fish, etc...at what point does that issue become more urgent than corporate profitability?

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » February 13th, 2019, 8:56 pm

The indisputable documented facts that people really need to know

Key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated. Scientists included Dr. James Hansen, a former NASA climatologist who is known as the "grandfather" of the climate change myth, Philip Jones, Michael Mann, et al. were all involved in trying "to lower past temperatures and to 'adjust' recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming,".

A cabal of scientists discussed various ways to stonewall the public from seeing the "background data on which their findings and temperature records were based," even going as far as deleting significant amounts of data.

Alarmist Climate change scientist who received large research grants, engaged in efforts to smear "any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work."

Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists. Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry. All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009 alone, far more than any research funded by the oil industry.

Ernie Eison

A short concise summation of facts,


Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » February 14th, 2019, 9:30 pm

Jonathon,
With respect to your initial question, I do not understand. I have stressed that in order to reach an informed position, one should examine all sides of an issue. With many individuals already believing that global warming is caused by humans, the two links I posted provide some alternative information with respect to that issue. That is, I am trying to expose individuals to the ‘other’ side of the issue.

In your first and second paragraphs, you mentions two key words, “evidence” and “believe”. So I will digress. My view is that there are two major ways by which individuals establish their positions. There are ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ means or, some combination of the two.

Here is one definition of those terms: “An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc.”

In other words, an objective approach involves the application of basic principles, reviewing existing facts and evidence, conducting research, and critical thinking. A subjective approach lacks basic analysis / critical thinking and is based on feelings, emotions, what sounds and looks good.

I was 29 or 30 when I first got an objective lesson in learning to examine both sides of issues. I have since endeavored to approach issues in an objective manner. As such, ‘evidence’ is all important and ‘beliefs’ are not. The position that indicate 97% of scientists ‘believe’ in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is immaterial. Such a consensus has little relevance as to what is, and isn’t factual evidence that supports the AGW position.

I am not impressed by consensus numbers as such numbers often change over time as invariably has been the case. You mentioned evolution. The theories of evolution and plate tectonics are now both widely accepted. But at their inception, the vast majority (consensus) of scholars rejected both theories. I suggest you investigate other examples where a large majority of professionals were so incredibly wrong. Look up Joseph Lister in he 1800’s and Copernicus in he 1500’s.

Here are two personal examples. In 1999, I submitted a shorter communication to a journal in which I announced the discovery of a possible second species of snake in the genus Contia. The associate editor and both reviewers rejected my draft. The editor suggested I convert the draft into a full length research article and he would submit it to a different associate editor and two different reviewers. I did so and the new associate editor and one reviewer also rejected the notion that a new species of snake had been discovered.

So there was an 83.3% consensus (5/6) of professional herpetologists that rejected my proposal that a new species of snake had not been discovered. If one had been able to query a large number of professional herpetologists across the nation, I wouldn’t be surprised if over 90 % would also have rejected the notion that a new species of snake had been discovered in North America. At the present time, the Forest Sharp –tailed Snake has been recognized as a new species. If you were to conduct a poll, I believe the vast majority of herpetologists now except the existence of the new species.

Another personal example: Do you believe the Rubber boa is rare? Do you believe the Southern Rubber Boa is rare? In 1971, the CDFW declared the SRB to be “RARE” (threatened) and that remains the agency’s current position. Never mind that there was zero valid evidence that would support the initial SRB listing. The listing was based solely on personal opinions and thus totally subjective in nature.

Also, the majority of wildlife biologists, conservationists, amateur herpetologist, and perhaps even professional herpetologists likely still believe the Rubber Boa to be rare. So if 90+% of all individuals believe the Rubber Boa is rare, does that make it established fact and there is no reason to look for evidence to the contrary? That is, with such a high consensus, would it be your position that there is no need to examine the possibility that the species in not rare?

As of now, I can provide a reasonable amount of evidence that supports the position that neither Rubber Boa, nor the SRB are rare. So would you agree with me that despite a large percentage of individuals that ‘believe’ the Rubber Boa to be rare, that is not a good reason to accept that positions as if it were fact?

So, the same scenario should apply to the issue of AGW. That is, just because a few years ago, there was the claim that 97% of climate researchers supporting the AGW scenario, one should not conclude the issue has been settles and thus discontinue doing additional investigations. In other words, when the overwhelming consensus of herpetologist, biologists, conservationist and others considered the Rubber Boa to be rare, was it folly on my part to begin making searches for the species?

What I attempted to do was show there are a number of highly qualified climate researchers (and scientists in related fields), that have published research that does no support the IPCC position on global warming. With such a highly complex issue as climate research, I believe it is prudent to wait and see what future research may reveal on the issue of AGW, one way or the other.

So I will leave you with a question. Do you (still) believe that the issue of AWG is settled because some individuals published their evaluation showing that 97% of climate researchers consider AWG to be established? Keep in mind the original document that produced the 97% figure was done a good number of years ago. So the question becomes, does that figure now represent the current state of the issue? Here again, I suggest you examine both sides. That is, review the research methods used by those that produced the 97% estimates and then review the critiques of those published accounts and the methods that were employed.

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3589
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » February 14th, 2019, 10:01 pm

Do you (still) believe that the issue of AWG is settled because some individuals published their evaluation showing that 97% of climate researchers consider AWG to be established? Keep in mind the original document that produced the 97% figure was done a good number of years ago. So the question becomes, does that figure now represent the current state of the issue? Here again, I suggest you examine both sides. That is, review the research methods used by those that produced the 97% estimates and then review the critiques of those published accounts and the methods that were employed.
I think "the science is settled" is always a poor term, as science continuously works and doesn't actually "settle" anywhere.

However, I also believe that your SRB example is quite irrelevant and might color your perceptions in an inappropriate manner. You are comparing an issue for which virtually no meaningful work had been done with an issue for which extensive work had been done.

As regards to climate change, I have been examining the evidence, including reading the contrarian evidence in detail, for over a decade. I have spoken to both academics, government scientists, and industry scientists involved in the issue, including scientists who work in the fossil fuel industry. I've gotten input from not just Americans but a number of people from other countries. And I believe it is beyond any reasonable doubt that our production of significant amounts of greenhouse gases has had an impact on the environment and that this impact will have negative consequences for much wildlife and poor people. I don't believe that the 97% figure is a very good argument for that, but for all reasonable purposes the conclusions drawn from that figure are in line with the truth.

I also believe that the controversy is quite immaterial in most practical considerations, as regardless of the impact of global warming specifically, it is obvious that our overconsumption is a massive issue beyond ANY doubt. It is obvious that air and water pollution are a major issue beyond ANY doubt. So I can't really take people seriously who use contrarian positions on AGW to then try to drive public or personal policy that consumes resources at a high rate, or burns fossil fuels at a high rate, or puts chemical waste into the environment at a high rate, when it is is so obvious that such actions have enormously negative consequences regardless of your position on AGW.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » February 16th, 2019, 10:19 am

Jonathan,
I agree that science is seldom settled. My identifying a new species of Contia could be overturned sometime in the future with additional discoveries. The examples I related were to demonstrate that a large majority of individuals, including professionals can be, and have been wrong. Thus, the citing of consensus figures can be less than trustworthy.

As for the production of greenhouse gasses producing most of the observed warming of the planet, I consider that the ‘science’ is still ongoing and thus has yet to be settled as well. So I am in a ‘holding pattern’. If I live long enough, I will hope to see the issue concluded one way or the other. In the meantime, what do you propose should be done with the world’s largest polluter, China?

One other point that I hope you will consider. With changes in basic environmental factors, invariably there are tradeoffs. That is, there often can be positive as well as negative outcomes. However, with few exceptions, with the increase in the global temperatures, negative consequences are only emphasized. At least in biological terms, positive outcome to global warming are likely to occur for many organisms. But you seldom if ever hear that point being mentioned.

I agree with much of what you mention in your last paragraph. But a major problem is the increase in the human population.

Last, the status of the Polar Bear is another issue in which there are different sides being taken by scientists. Here again, I believe it is prudent to wait and see how it all plays out with continuing surveys and research.

Richard FH

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3589
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » February 17th, 2019, 7:58 am

We are making massive decisions every day in regards to what we're doing to the Earth, I fail to see why we should "wait for the science to be settled" in order to make more responsible choices regarding our resource use, but feel no need to wait to settle the science before we mine gold, burn oil, deplete fisheries, clearcut forest, pollute watersheds, pump toxins into the air, etc.

Isn't it strange that only conservation choices are supposed to wait for the science, but corporate and polluting choices can go full steam ahead without a lick of science to back their assumptions?

As far as the world's greatest polluter, if you're anything like the average American then you are responsible for far more pollution than the average person in China, and have been all your life. The suggestion that Chinese people are somehow more responsible than American people simply due to where their political boundaries lie is completely illogical to me - if China split in half tomorrow like Sudan or Czechoslovakia did, then America would once again be the biggest polluter (as it has been for over 90% of your life). Obviously China splitting in half would be immaterial to the amount of pollution polluting the Earth, so I fail to see why their impact takes priority over ours. If we all started consuming like Chinese people, we would pollute less. If they all starting consuming like us, they would pollute a lot more.

Not to mention that some Chinese pollution is created in the process of manufacturing products for America and other nations.

I think we are most responsible for our own decisions and the decisions of people we can affect, and so American pollution should be our first priority. The best way to affect the pollution in other nations is to stop buying their products, stop shipping things in from overseas, and set an example with our own resource use of how important we believe conservation is that will cause our leadership in international discussions and treaties to actually hold significant weight.


I agree with much of what you mention in your last paragraph. But a major problem is the increase in the human population.
It is extremely difficult to increase or decrease the population of any area by even 50%. However, it is quite possible to increase or decrease our resource use by several times that much. The average American uses 10x to 100x more of many resources that the citizens of many other nations. So no, I don't believe that population is the main issue. Overconsumption is.

Population can't increase indefinitely, but thankfully the rate of increase is already slowing down nearly everywhere and will continue to do so. By far the most proven and effective ways to ensure population stability are by developing food and economic security and by improving women's health and education. Coincidentally, that happens to be my exact profession, so I have that side covered.

Meanwhile, while we're working on that, we will have a hard time convincing the rest of the world to stop striving to exploit the world just as much as Americans until we, you know, stop exploiting the world like Americans. Depending on which metric is most important to you, Americans on average are using up resources at a rate 4x to 10x the sustainable rate if the entire planet lived like us. So why don't we get THAT rate down by a couple factors, and then we'll be able to deal with the world's population as it is when everywhere else eventually develops (as they clearly will, sooner or later). It's a much more attractive and sustainable option than genocide.

Post Reply