Anti-Humans 30

[zdas04]

I've often referred to the environmental lobby as "anti-human". I just came across a document on the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) web site that supports that idea. The whole document is at Laramie Energy, but I've extracted a page from it that I've attached.

The attached is a series of quotes from noted environmentalists. I especially like the quote from John Davis (editor of Earth First) who said

Human beings as a species have no more value than slugs

or

I do not believe that a human being has a right to life ... I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals

I think that the quotes in the attached fully support the idea that the law firms generally called "Environmental Non-Government Organizations (e-NGO)" are totally and completely against their own species.

David

 

[ewh]

I didn't say wise and virtuous, I said advanced and intellegent.

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[jgailla]

There is an excellent discussion of possible outcomes of alien-human contact in an essay in C.S. Lewis's "The World's Last Night."
He leans toward the idea that if aliens are like humans one of us would destroy the other.

 

[cranky108]

Of all the possible ways our spies could meet it's demise, one possible solution we are not trying to achieve (at least we don't look like we are trying) is to colonize and explore.

Any good reasons why?

Maybe our advancements in some areas are far exceeding those in other areas. Or our advanced thinking, really isen't so advanced.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

Things a bit boring in the office these days??

 

[zdas04]

I'll admit that I've often thought that the Greenies were from another planet, but I never expected this thread to evolve into an extraterrestrial life discussion. Have at it.

David

 

[SNORGY]

David:

We agree on one thing at least: Folks in PETA are nut-jobs.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[cranky108]

Still like the sign: "Save the baby humans".

 

[zdas04]

In the 2009 movie "Did you hear about the Morgans?", Sara Jessica Parker's character told Mary Steenburgen that she was a PETA member. Mary Seeenburgen's character said "Me too, that stands for 'People Eating Tasty Animals', right?". I laughed for hours.

David

 

[SNORGY]

Ironically, when I first heard about them, I thought it was spelled PITA.

Synonyms, I suppose.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[Laplacian]

Abortion determined safer than birth (sarcasm) ->

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123

 

[Dinosaur]

If the environment were the cause for concern they would have us believe, they would insist that all countries adhere to the proposed policies and not just a handful of "developed" countries. Only the virtuous countries need to fear treaties like the Kyoto protocol since only they would attempt to live up to them after they signed-on. The rest would sign it and then promptly ignore any obligation to follow it.

 

[Longinthetooth]

Dinosaur is right. Just like the Declaration of human rights in 1947 (I think). Everyone and his dog signed that one. Every dictator just ignore's it.

 

[jmw]

It is why we can only advance through well conducted treaties rather than unilateral action and it is why the NGOs who gained influence through the actions of Maurice Strong are often so damaging.
It seems reasonable to collect the views of interest groups but when, Alinsky style, those NGOS are taken over by activists with a different agenda that the treaty process fails because they are not interested in reality. They consider that the normal outcome of treaties which is consensus where all parties arrive at a solution acceptable to all is actually a compromise.
The NGOS hate consensus results because they arrive at a 1.5 realistic sulphur limit for marine fuels but they want and will force through a 1.0% unsustainable limit and they want this as a step to a 0.1% limit.
This is when the consensus is lost and when come countries decide to comply and others decide not to.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

If the concern is the number of cars on the road, then the solution is simple, don't fix the roads. The poor condition of the roads will remove a significent number of cars on the road.

We can put all that money into some alternitive, like mass transportation.

 

[SnTMan]

Either that or the types of cars offered for sale will change.

Imagine the ALL SUV line-up

 

[zdas04]

I just finished work on an API committee to respond to the latest attack on the Oil & Gas industry by the EPA. As part of my participation I had occasion to read the responses to the regulations by several e-NGO's. The tone of all of them was like a principle talking to a bad boy in grade 3, condescending, demanding, and highly irrational. I took one of the rotten things and after I threw out the parts that were part of their agenda, but not part of the actual rule they were commenting on, and stacked the proposed rule, API's comment, and the e-NGO comment on the same line. The pattern was quickly clear. The EPA wanted to spank upstream Oil & Gas with a willow switch. The API wanted to know when the EPA got the right to regulate CO2 as a "hazardous pollutant", and the e-NGO wanted us punished by lethal injection. The API and EPA columns were in a similar universe with regard to punishment magnitude (i.e., a switch is pretty close to a scolding, neither leaves many lasting scars), The e-NGO was so far in left field that one of the EPA staffers mentioned to me that he had calculated that if the EPA had implemented 50% of the e-NGO's demands, the industry and then (within days) the country and then (within weeks) the world economy would cease to exist. I thought he was understating the magnitude of their anti-human feelings.

David

 

[jmw]

NGOs are not troubled by needing a single solution that everyone agrees to, they will promote a range of options, some mutually exclusive (e.g. a ban on heavy fuel oil and a tax on heavy fuel oil), at the same time and they do not feel themselves obligated to stick to the truth nor to facts nor to logic nor to rationality.
Their idea of "reasonable" "affordable" "Justifiable" and "doable" is when everyone agrees to do what they want whether it is in fact any of these things.
The various NGO web sites are happy to conflate all pollutants under one generic heading and allow the lay public to assume that they are all greenhouses gases, for example when SOX actually offsets the greenhouse gases... and why some eco engineers wnat to create artificial volcanoes to spew sulphur into the atmosphere as part of limiting warming while others are busy bring the hammer down on SOX emissions and without explanation of why these might both be necessary if they are.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[rb1957]

each NGO has it's own solution to the problem, and everyone else is a heretic for not seeing th eobvious solution.

i remember the "West Wing" episode where a bunch of renewable enrgy factions were viaing for a hand-out; each spent 50% of their time boasting they were the only viable solution and 50% slagging off the others.

"people's front of judea ... bloody splinter group"

and good lord above, i hope we don't go seeding the atmosphere with sulphur or we'll end up like Venus (the planet, not the godess).

 

[jmw]

Artificial Volcanoes, an adaptation of the suggestions of Prof. Paul Crutzen.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[zdas04]

The fake volcano's article was kind of interesting until I got to the part about contrails not being possible in nature and they are signs that the government is poisoning us using them. That made the credibility of the whold story go out the window.

I stopped reading at that point, I know if I'd gone on there would have been a discussion of pople being probed by space aliens and Elvis still being alive on some grassy knoll somewhere.

David