|
extrememountaineer
Jun 13, 2003, 5:20 AM
Post #1 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
The "environmentalist" movement is based largely on hysteria and bogus "science" in order to further their agenda, whatever that might be. They are a threat to the stability and well-being of America.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jun 13, 2003, 5:23 AM
Post #2 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
In reply to: The "environmentalist" movement is based largely on hysteria and bogus "science" in order to further their agenda, whatever that might be. They are a threat to the stability and well-being of America.
Gee, and for a moment there Jody, I actually thought you were a democrat.
*sense the sarcasm*
Good thing you came in and said something stupid like that. Why are you so dumb and wrong all the time? :lol:
Stupid conservative! :lol:
*give it yer best shot, pal*
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jun 13, 2003, 5:59 AM
Post #3 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
think for yourselfs... how can a little enviroment movement threaten the stability of a large nation like the USA. even if they suceeded in making every plant make an outtake cleaning station, your economy is capable of doing it with as little effort as it takes you to brush some dust from your shoulder.
the only reason hte big unes aret doing anything about it the fact that they so much money they cant see the end of thei ban accounts. and the want to have more. so why spen 1% of your years income for the best of the plannet. hell, ill rather bathe myself in my money, so i can fell it. why should i have to pay for some non profitable BS??
a certain character from disney cartoons springs into mind.
|
|
|
|
|
katydid
Jun 13, 2003, 11:17 AM
Post #4 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 3212
|
In reply to: The "environmentalist" movement is based largely on hysteria and bogus "science" in order to further their agenda, whatever that might be. They are a threat to the stability and well-being of America.
Yes. Yes we are. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
theooze
Jun 13, 2003, 11:41 AM
Post #5 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 619
|
Jody, you are so full of shizit.
|
|
|
|
|
djmclimber
Jun 13, 2003, 1:02 PM
Post #6 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 149
|
In reply to: The "environmentalist" movement is based largely on hysteria and bogus "science" in order to further their agenda, whatever that might be. They are a threat to the stability and well-being of America.
i agree with you jody
Wildtrail wrote
In reply to: Good thing you came in and said something stupid like that. Why are you so dumb and wrong all the time? Stupid conservative! |
|
|
|
|
fishypete
Jun 13, 2003, 1:10 PM
Post #7 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2002
Posts: 200
|
To provide a counterpoint to the impressive blanket statements (e.g. environmentalists are a threat to the well being of America), I would like to tell you all a story.
A story about a fish.
The Cod is an amazing fish. Once found commonly in the north Atlantic, it had immense concentrations off the continental shelf and the grand banks. First fished by the Basques from Spain in the 1500?s, this fish was exploited by both Europeans (mainly British and French) and settlers in the ?new-world? right up until the 1990?s.
Earliest reports by explorers to this part of the world described a mind-boggling density of fish. In fact, there were so many fish, that people used to catch them by dropping a basket over the side, then pulling it up quickly and lo and behold ? there were fish in it! Cod are a schooling fish, and with their prolific numbers and high densities, many proclamations were made over the centuries concerning the invincibility of the species.
These statements culminated most famously with a statement by a well respected professor hired by the government in the early mid 1900?s saying amongst other things that ?nature was invincible?, and that this fishery was ?more than capable of looking after itself? and ?could be expected to last forever?.
Of course fishing practices improved, huge steam ships were introduced in the 1920?s, which then enabled new long-line and tawling techniques. Finally the electronic age arrived enabling precise location of the massive schools of fish, and catches rose from the 1800?s levels of 15,000 tons annually to over 300?000 tons per year in the 1970?s and 80?s. There seemed no limit to the amount of fish that could be caught.
In the 80?s signs began to appear that something wasn?t quite right. The sizes of the fish were falling, and it became much less common to see fish greater than 7kg, the size fish must reach before reaching maturity. Fisherman began to catch mainly 3-4 kg fish, 30 kg fish became almost unheard of, and they noticed the distributions changing. In all there was quite a list of unusual precedents occurring for the first time ever, however it didn?t pose a problem to the big new boats ? they just traveled a bit further, stayed out a bit longer, and the catches continued to increase.
In fact there were enough of these disquieting facts, that several interest groups (of various backgrounds, including some fisherman) began to raise the issue of protective quotas. In fact their continuing legal battles went so far, that they ended in the supreme court. Finally the court decided the argument, stating that catches were still big, and that it would be devastating to many sea-based cities if restrictions were implemented. This was in the mid 1980?s.
At that point, catches had just passed their all time peak of around 400?000 tons of Cod per year. Then the bubble burst. From that point until 1992, there was a 90% drop in the catches, and then the fishery collapsed. Just as 25?000 people in Newfoundland alone lost their jobs, the regulators got together and called a moratorium on Cod fishing, banning any further catches for two years. Everyone thought that would be enough for the fishery to recover.
That was 10 years ago. A stable and mature cod population hasn?t regenerated. The industry is decimated. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their livelihood. From boom to bust in 10 years, and the only warning was some pesky little signs like a changed distribution, and smaller fish. But the catches were still going so well!
So my moral of the story ? the signs were there, but they were ignored because there was no big problem at that time. No heed was given, and a massive price was paid.
So when you see statements like ?environmentalists are a threat to the well-being of America?, perhaps a little caution may be in order. History shows us that ignoring the signs can be devastating. Scientists can only make projections, and by definition these can be wrong. But to finish with the cod example ? restrictions in the mid 1980?s would have slowed the decline of the species, giving more time to react and find a solution before the bust happened, and everyone lost everything. The alternative was a reduced, but at least sustainable fishery, providing a livelihood for many people.
At the moment there are some pesky little signs like increasing temperature and CO2, and ozone holes. Sure there is still plenty of disagreement about their validity, only time will decide. However perhaps caution, and some preventative steps like lowering greenhouse emissions aren?t such a bad idea. After all, the price for getting it wrong is so high. Personally I would prefer a little adjustment of my attitudes and habits now, than a life threatening event in 50 years.
Cheers
Fishy.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jun 13, 2003, 1:13 PM
Post #8 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Speaking of fish....
What did Helen Keller say when she passed the fish market?
|
|
|
|
|
arrettinator
Jun 13, 2003, 1:36 PM
Post #10 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Posts: 8522
|
Someday he'll meet up w/ the 3rd billygoat, and it won't be pretty. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
one900johnnyk
Jun 13, 2003, 1:36 PM
Post #11 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 2381
|
In reply to: Speaking of fish.... What did Helen Keller say when she passed the fish market?
hahahahahahaha.
WHAT?!!!?
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Jun 13, 2003, 2:13 PM
Post #12 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Mornin' ladies....
|
|
|
|
|
bakedjake
Jun 13, 2003, 2:25 PM
Post #13 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2003
Posts: 3755
|
fishypete... you a fly fisher???? very few spin fisherman i've met are involved enough to know about the cod fishery. i'm sure jody has gotta be trolling us but it's a great topic. it reminds me of the scene in the matrix where humans are compared to a virus.
|
|
|
|
|
fishypete
Jun 13, 2003, 2:38 PM
Post #14 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2002
Posts: 200
|
Hi Jake,
I have fly fished, but I am not expert. I am more of a fishologist - I have pursued fishy things for a few years now (e.g. aquaculture and fish biology, veterinary stuff etc).
Just interested in things fishy in general!
I've got some other nice stories in the memory bank - I'll save 'em up for Jody's next baited hook!
Cheers
Fishy.
|
|
|
|
|
bakedjake
Jun 13, 2003, 2:50 PM
Post #15 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2003
Posts: 3755
|
In reply to: Hi Jake, I have fly fished, but I am not expert. I am more of a fishologist - I have pursued fishy things for a few years now (e.g. aquaculture and fish biology, veterinary stuff etc). Just interested in things fishy in general! I've got some other nice stories in the memory bank - I'll save 'em up for Jody's next baited hook! Cheers Fishy. |
|
|
|
|
extrememountaineer
Jun 14, 2003, 1:06 AM
Post #16 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
In reply to: It's these kind of uneducated, blanket statements you make, Jody, that make me realize that any kind of dialogue with you is worthless.
Okay babeage, tell me how I am wrong. Pick a subject.
Okay, I'll throw one out there. Try MTBE, the gasoline additive they started putting into the gas in CA a few years ago. The environmentalists said it was absolutely needed to cut down on polluting emissions. Bogus "scientific" data was presented and the idiots at the state capitol in Sacramento bought it. They passed a law requiring it to be in the gasoline. #1, it actually makes newer engines run worse, my mileage decreased by almost 3mpg after the new gas was implemented. #2, it is very hard on old fuel lines(rubber kind), I saw the amount of vehicles burning up on the side of the road dramatically increase. #3, years later, they find MTBE in the ground water supply near gas stations and they go oops, we better phase it out, it is a danger. Now you see little stickers on the gas pumps, "This gasoline contains MTBE. It has been determined to present a significant health risk. Do not inhale fumes...." etc.
That is just one example of the environmentalist wackos running around half-cocked and getting the stupid politicians to sign on to their hysteria, and then when the REAL science is paid attention to, they slither away with their tail between their legs, unwilling to take responsibility for their foolish decisions...
|
|
|
|
|
extrememountaineer
Jun 14, 2003, 5:59 AM
Post #17 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
And how about that charade involving the supposedly endangered "Northern Spotted Owl"...what a crock that turned out to be.
What about the firemen up in WA that died because they environmentalists wouldn't let the helicopters lift water out of a local river because it was an "endangered fish" habitat, steelhead or salmon or something?
I am serious when I say the environmental wackos are screwing up our country.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jun 14, 2003, 10:47 AM
Post #18 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jody,
Shut up. You're making mountains out of mole hills. It's always the few things that didn't work that stand out, not the hundreds of things that did.
#1 The sh*t they put in the gas did, in fact, help reduce emissions.
#2 Should I list the things that stupid conservatives do that hurt the environment because they don't care? That would be pretty easy and you and I both know the list would be longer than it would be on the side of the environmentalists. :wink:
We have additives in our gas here, as well. It doesn't hurt gas mileage much at all. About a 3-5% decrease.
Also, inhaling ANY gas fume is dangerous, regardless of additive. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jun 14, 2003, 7:49 PM
Post #19 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
the history of leaded gasoline:
research and discuss, please.
|
|
|
|
|
oldandintheway
Jun 14, 2003, 9:09 PM
Post #20 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 2450
|
So let get this straight...Presumably enviromentalists want to preserve as many natural resources as possible and according to Mr. Extreme they are ruining America. Therefore in order for America to save itself from ruin we must consume as many natural resources as possible.
Hmm, sounds a bit simplistic. Seems to me though that if everything is consumed ruin is a foregone conclusion. Best revist the ol' "Law of the Commons" concept Mr. E. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
extrememountaineer
Jun 14, 2003, 11:47 PM
Post #21 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 377
|
wildtrail...so, decreasing mpg, also decreases emissions, how does that work? And please address the MTBE in the groundwater.
Camhead and oldy, go ahead and show me some sound scientific data from unbiased sources. We conservatives have to live on this earth too, so we are purposely going to destroy the earth? Huh?
I just don't buy into the "sky is falling" hysteria that drives the environmentalist movement at the threat to the American way of life.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Jun 15, 2003, 1:30 PM
Post #22 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
In reply to: ...years later, they find MTBE in the ground water supply near gas stations and they go oops, we better phase it out, it is a danger.
unfortunately, things that were supposed harmless (for health, for environment, for economy...) at one moment appear to be harmful later. It's not and won't be the first time. But in this case an attempt was made to reduce pollution and it has to be noticed ; if it appeared to be dangerous I suppose it will soon change.
I'm not sure environmentalists are a danger for everyone. What's sure is that taking care of the environment is TODAY something expensive. But it could avoid both money loss and, more important, earth damage, in the FUTURE.
As you and I, Jody are fond of photography, you might know our hobby is pretty polluting (and expensive!). But it's almost impossible to get rid of it as we love it. Anyway, when I talk about pollution and chemistry with my parents (my dad worked in the chemistry for 30 yrs), they always answer me : stop talking so many pictures...and they are right, they, goofy!
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jun 15, 2003, 4:17 PM
Post #23 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
In reply to: Camhead and oldy, go ahead and show me some sound scientific data from unbiased sources. We conservatives have to live on this earth too, so we are purposely going to destroy the earth? Huh?
uhhhh... what are you refuting me for? all I asked was that someone discuss the history of leaded gasoline. come on, google isn't that hard.
leaded gasoline: discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Jun 15, 2003, 4:24 PM
Post #24 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
In reply to: wildtrail...so, decreasing mpg, also decreases emissions, how does that work? And please address the MTBE in the groundwater. Camhead and oldy, go ahead and show me some sound scientific data from unbiased sources. We conservatives have to live on this earth too, so we are purposely going to destroy the earth? Huh? I just don't buy into the "sky is falling" hysteria that drives the environmentalist movement at the threat to the American way of life.
I can't say much for the groundwater issue, but reducing emissions is what was needed. Less crap coming out of the tailpipe into the atmosphere the better. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
marks
Jun 15, 2003, 4:54 PM
Post #25 of 49
(1424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 376
|
what a load of crap your talking.the enviroment should be the number 1 priority on any politicians list,it would be on mine.if the richest countrys spent 1% of what they do on weapons the planet would stand half a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
