The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Are environmentalists on the road to Damascus? > Comments

Are environmentalists on the road to Damascus? : Comments

By Max Rheese, published 2/4/2008

Some will never admit the falsehood of anthropogenic global warming - they will simply move onto the next environmental scare campaign.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
“Kevin Rudd, Ross Garnaut, Penny Wong and many others are ready to commit huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to schemes that will limit the effects of unproven man-made climate change, while the science opposing this view becomes more compelling by the day.”

The long range nature of ‘solutions’ to climate change put about by these people might save us from expensive follies – x% reduction in emissions by 2050 etc. And, who knows; perhaps someone might even admit that they have been led up the garden path by climate change alarmists
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 8:56:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what is the point of your article Max? Is it that we should just continue business as usual until we are forced to convert to other fuel sources by the depletion or economics of oil and coal?

Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real, the approach needed to protect our future is basically the same, with respect to energy. We MUST find alternative energy sources. Indeed, we must do this for a more urgent reason than climate change; peak oil.

Instead of just blanketly bagging environmentalists for being concerned about climate change, wouldn’t it be better to implore them to ‘correct’ their focus onto the more urgent issue of peak oil and the underlying necessity of developing a sustainable society?

Surely your organisation, the Australian Environment Foundation, wants to work with those who have environmental concerns and the passion to do something about them. And yet your article is entirely negative and alienating towards them.

“Some will never admit the falsehood of anthropogenic global warming.”

Come on Max, you don’t know that it is false. Quite frankly, this statement destroys your credibility. Combined with the complete lack of suggestion as to how environmentalist might better focus their energies and a complete lack of expression on just what approach we should be taken towards protecting our future, I can only assume the worst – a desire to see business as usual and concomitantly to stay in the good books with the big-business profit-driven manically pro-growth end of town.

I hope I’m wrong, but that’s how it looks.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 9:24:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Louis Hissink, a geologist, who contributes articles for http://www.henrythornton.com/ first drew my attention to the 'fact' that anthropogenic global warming was not a done deal.

It took a while to get my 'greenie' head around this. However, he was not arguing that we should do nothing about self-evident environmental problems, which are obviously a direct result of human activity, but that perhaps we should not be so arrogant as a species to assume we can fix everything. That 'global warming' - and I take the point of the article, that we may have global flat lining or even cooling - is probably a long term geological 'event' in which case how we address it should take this into account.

The religious zeal of the true believers is strong. My friends simply refuse to listen to this argument. One, a scientist, simply says he is wrong and 'stupid' and will not even read his articles.

I think that it is important that we non-scientists keep our mind open and encourage our politicians to do the same, before they squander zillions of our hard earned $$$$$$'s on red-herrings (a species that is definitely not endangered).
Posted by DialecticBlue, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 10:13:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig. You and I are wasting out time trying to convince these cretins that conservation of the earth's resources for the use of future generations is a worthwhile pursuit. The selfish raping of the planet for monetary gain will continue, regardless of whether AGW occurs or not. It will only be a matter of time before we go the way of the Mayans , hastened by these parasites.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 10:17:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Give it up Max. Your front group has no credibility and it never will - its emergence as a polyp splitting off from the IPA was too obvious. The real question is when you lot will give up your ideological obsession with bashing straw man "environmentalists". A shred of honesty might improve your credibility, but I suspect that would be too hard for you. And that fossil fuel funding might dry up.
Posted by NorthWestShelf, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 11:04:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Until then I guess we'll have to be careful with how we are changing the natural environment to suit ourselves. Far from taking sides, humankind is changing the environment. And the point being nobody knows what effect this is having in the long run. So it's going to cost society a few dollars.

At least if global warming is occurring and it's anthrogenic there's the possibility of changing our behaviour - like a diagnosis, the earlier the better! Where do you stand if there's no possibility of changing such a catastrophe? I would say the natural environment having its own back.
Posted by Richard_, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 12:02:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy