Not my intention of patronization, I'm sorry about that. About the nuclear phaseout, last time I checked that was the topic we were discussing in the first place, innit? You will find that time to time I'll reference to the topic of the thread.
Oh, I thought we had slipped into enviromentalism discussion. You know, the part where THEY ARE WRONG comes from? But allright.
What does this mean. Wrong about what and how? That it was a problem? This is more than interesting, I am waiting for you to provide some scathing review articles that tell us just how THEY!!! have been wrong.
Pretty much every environmental movement that uttered the word "DDT" spoke how it was really a toxine and not a cure.
Well, you failed to provide sources to prove just exactly who THEY are.
DDT is a toxicant. It is applied as such, as an insecticide. It was it's entire purpose and it still functions well enough in that role throughout equator. What do you mean by cure? Do you speak figuratively?
Do you really deny history now?
I do deny yours. I happen study ecotoxicology and ecology. I doubt you are in a position of authority if you fail to provide any kind of sources for your claims.
DDT is nowadays considered pretty much safe in all standards, the only trouble with it is that we shouldn't spam the planet with it, running the risk of fostering bacteria that is resistant to it.
That was not why DDT was considered bad. That was not why it was banned in Western Countries. Human concern had little basis on the DDT ban whatsoever.
DDT was banned because as a POP it's subject to biomagnification and presumably bioaccumulation. It is most famously one of the compounds responsible for decline of birds of prey - together with other organochloric compounds. The actual mechanism, thinning of eggshells, is proved beyond reasonable doubt. As a biomagnifying POP the reasons for DDT ban were not human hazards. There's a pretty good review of DDT from Rogan & Chen 2005 in Lancet 366:763-773.
Where does the number 2000 come from? Do you state that acidification is not a problem? 
Do you fail to see that the reason it isn't such a big problem as it was predicted is because people acted on it?
You see, world is full of wrong predictions. And the world is full of bad critique of predictions. If a prediction A is based on a curve, then changing the parameters of the curve will render that prediction invalid in no time. That makes the prediction invalid because assumptions are no longer true.
OK, so tell me what exactly was done to prevent acidrainmeltdown?[/quote]
Oh I don't know, maybe something like actually lowering the amount of sulphur in emissions? Stuff like
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/3663/2007/acp-7-3663-2007.pdf this that wasn't too difficult to find?
Because last time I checked, China is currently building coal thermoelectric plants every 3 or 4 days, without any kind of environmental concern at all.
And this has something to do with the history of acid rain or it's adverse effects or remediation of them because of..? I have no firsthand familiarity of Chinese situation. Maybe there's a source somewhere, telling how Chinese example means that acid rain was never a problem at all.
they were wrong about peak oil
What does this mean? That it doesn't come? That it does not exist? Or just the timeframe?
Do you want me to quote president of the USA Jimmy Carter on how peak oil would mean that the world would have to phase out oil in no time, since it would come by by the eighties? DO you want me to quote all the illuminaries that have proclaimed doom and gloom for the past 40 ****ing years that it was just "by the corner"?
"Peak Oil" will happen. One day. And it will be ****ing irrelevant for all of us. We won't even notice it.[/quote]
Oh yes. That. Walked into a mine. Carter's warning of peak oil came after US oil production had hit it's peak, but before the large discoveries of oil reserves in 1980s. You may take even wikileaks with a pinch of salt, but even Saudies seemed conserned about the fact just a moment ago.
The entire problem is that 1) oil consumption increases all the time in global scale, 2) oil is a globally traded commodity, and 3) potential of new discoveries dimishes. 2 and 3 wouldn't be a problem if 1 didn't mean that nothing is done.
1. Who?, 2. When was a statement to this effect made, 3. How much does it matter if the timetable slides from one arbitrary date to another date that is practically the same in the long run.
The UN.[/quote]
Where and when? I mean, you need to be a
bit more precise. "The UN?"
And that's exactly right. It doesn't matter if the arbitrary date is 2000 or 2010 or 2035. It's wrong anyways.
So you question the existence of current extinction event or the rate thereof? This is an important distinction.
Let's see. We have a fossil record saying that yes, species are going extinct fast. We have data of large amount of species disappearing in a very short timespan after human colonization of areas. We have estimations of biodiversity centers, AND we have estimations of the loss of these biodiversity centers. We can just look at tropical rainforests, take any assumption of the amount of species living there and calculate coldly the projected loss of diversity if the unerlying assumptions are not changed. The assumption that you can just remove habitat and not have an adverse effect on species numbers is frankly very weird - and that's the underlying assumption in these extinction rates.
So you can state that the arbitrary date is wrong. Does that remove the problem? Do you even think of it as a problem? Do you think the problem warrants a closer look or interest? How do you propose this thing could be approached?
Besides, your statement of "THEM!" then becomes weird. It's not like extinction event is a ideological assumption. There are hundreds of scientific articles about it. Maybe THEY are part of THEM as well?
Anyways, some food for thougth, http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/10/species-extinctions-and-question.html
Thanks for the link.
they are utterly wrong about agriculture and specially about GM, etc.,etc.
Wrong about agriculture? How? Is there a singular problem with agriculture that all enviromentalist critique is based on?
They envision an agriculture that is based upon "locality", that is "organic", that doesn't include tens of thousands of miles of transportation of food, etc., that doesn't include "chemicals" or GMs.[/quote]
YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN. Who are "they"? Where do "they" state these things?
Pure anti-scientific RUBBISH.
Hell yeah it is, especially if you make up your opponent.
What I find the most ridiculous in all of this is your weak attempt in trying to claim to be somehow impartial or more logical, when your every single post in here just reeks of purely ideological attack on every value of enviromentalism.
I don't understand you, you just came out and saw my posts today? I've been attacking the ideology of environmentalism since I started posting in this thread, what the hell are you talking about.
Oh really?
As I said before and mostly you missed that part, environmental worries are real and should be paid attention. This is perpendicular to the discussion I was having about the psychology inherent in the environmentalism and how we should be aware of it and tame it accordingly.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I took that as meaning what you said. An obvious mistake, in retrospect.
It would do you well to oppose, say, Greenpeace's views, since those seem to be the ones you most adamantly oppose. Of course, this does not answer the question why you need to so staunchly oppose a viewpoint no one in the thread supports, but whatever, we attack ridiculous worldviews all the time.
It's not only Greenpeace unfortunately, but many if not most environmental movements that got most of these things wrong.
"Most, if not all" Come on this is getting ridiculous.
And when people like Mark Lynas, a staunch environmentalist, dared to point it out too, he got the same emotional replies that you are tossing here as well.
Where am I emotional? Is it because I dare to point out your strawmanning? Or your questionable pick of examples? Maybe your distorted arguments about commonly accepted facts, like DDT or acid rain? Maybe because it would be nice if you provided sources for your arguments?
And wouldn't it just be nice if it was you who got to decide who was a loonie. Please tell us.
How do you really think "loonies" are classified? By the "sane" people of course. I don't get you. Next thing will be what, that I'm merely "giving an opinion"?
Since you speak of loonies and mentalists it is obvious that your problem with conservation and enviromentalism is not based on facts. Despite you stating that something is "unscientific rubbish", these kind of lines betray you. Scientific has nothing to do with it, because if it had, you could easily provide sources and constructive criticism - something you have absolutely failed to do in this thread. Your statement of "sanity" is just thinly veiled hostility - a conventient mental escape, where you don't even have to address their arguments (even if they are obviously faulty) because you can just declare your opponents as lunatics. Not a very novel approach to political opponents, is it?
It is painfully obvious that you have a very big axe to grind with anything you consider to be enviromentalism. Therefor your statement of "loonies" is in no way objective or warrants any kind of critical thought, since it is only you shouting out your personal bias.
"You don't see?" Oh how handy. Obviously all of this discussion and wailing about it only exists in our heads. Is a green politician arguing for nuclear power either a hypocrite or a heretic?
Not an hypocrite, but an heretic. Check Lynas or Monbiot and the trashing they got into. Bjorn Lomborg was tossed into the garbage bin a decade ago, for he dared to question environmental myths. This is nothing new.
Yet they do exist and even have some weight in political discourse. How interesting. Maybe they aren't enviromentalists at all, then?
But anyways. You haven't been able to even
name any of these horrendous enviromentalists you so staunchly oppose, even less to point out where they as some kind of collective espouse these kind of views.
