- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The book argues that even if fossil fuels created no waste, including no CO2, if they were even cheaper, if they would last forever, the “Green” movement would still oppose them.
You really are going to value the opinion of someone who says this?.
He has it right.
The Green movement is not just for a pristine environment untouched by man, they are against human progress. In the 1980’s it was thought that controlled fusion of hydrogen into helium was just around the corner. This was pollution free energy. What did the environmental leaders have to say about that?
Jeremy Rifkin: “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.” Inexhaustible power only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet’s resources, to destroy its fragile balance.This “idiot child” would like an inexhaustible, clean source of power. It does often seem that radical environmentalists think everyone else is an “idiot child.” Prince Phillip, the former head of the World Wildlife Fund wanted to be reincarnated as a deadly virus in order to cure overpopulation.
Paul Ehrlich: Developing fusion for human beings would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”
Amory Lovins: “It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
You religious nuts all amuse me.
Watch a US Senator Cite the Bible to Prove That Humans Aren't Causing Global Warming | Mother Jones
Yes, there are dumb****s who think fusion power would just be nuclear power times eleven, and suuper dangerous as a result. (they envision every nuclear plant as just being a nuclear bomb) There are also people who think we shouldn't use solar power because it will drain the sun faster. You want to focus on these people or the adults talking?
I'm agnostic. Certainly men recognized as green leaders are fair game to cite as examples of green thinking.
Certainly an elected senator counts as an example of "skeptic" thinking.
Doesn't matter that you're agnostic. You're a skeptic. He's a skeptic, and a leader. He's clearly an example.
I don't think human activity has much to do with climate, so I'm not sure what point you're making.
Anyway, the green leadership is on record.
So is the skeptic leadership. That is the point I just made. Skeptic leadership thinks God prevents global warming. Your leadership.
Simply false.
Your "green leadership" was some university biologist, and an author. The third link was an Amazon page of some book not even written by Amory Lovins.
But an elected US Senator doesn't count?
He has it right.
The Green movement is not just for a pristine environment untouched by man, they are against human progress. In the 1980’s it was thought that controlled fusion of hydrogen into helium was just around the corner. This was pollution free energy. What did the environmental leaders have to say about that?Jeremy Rifkin: “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.” Inexhaustible power only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet’s resources, to destroy its fragile balance.This “idiot child” would like an inexhaustible, clean source of power. It does often seem that radical environmentalists think everyone else is an “idiot child.” Prince Phillip, the former head of the World Wildlife Fund wanted to be reincarnated as a deadly virus in order to cure overpopulation.
Paul Ehrlich: Developing fusion for human beings would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”
Amory Lovins: “It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Lovins was quoted in the book. And no, a US Senator is just a US Senator.
Some guy quoted in a book over thirty years ago is "leadership" but a sitting US senator, who wrote a book on global warming himself isn't!? :lamo The man is chairman of the Environment and Public Works committee. But no. Not leadership. :lamo
Another strong performance today in mental gymnastics, let's see if the judges give him the gold!
The point I think you're missing is that this discussion is about fossil fuels, not global warming. I assume he's in favor of fossil fuels.
You really are going to value the opinion of someone who says this?
Jack Hays, if every gallon of gas directly killed a baby, you'd still support them. This is a worthwhile discussion we should take very seriously.
The point you missing is that your example of "leadership" is dodgy. I'm merely applying your standards to other situations. You're a skeptic, and skeptic leadership says God will wave a wand and stop global warming, or whatever.
If this methodology seems suspect to you, maybe you should look in a mirror.
Some guy allegedly quoted in a book 30 years ago thinks free energy is bad? Ok. So what? I'm still voting for free energy. Do you have it?
AGW skepticism and advocacy are not in play in this thread. Ehrlich, McKibben and Raskin are all recognized green energy leaders.
We'll skip over your attempt to pretend fossil fuels, AGW, and "green energy" have no relation.
Recognized by who?
Do you deny their leadership role? Your denial has become tiresome.
Leadership in what? What have they done?
Green energy advocacy.
Because of a quote in a book 30 years ago, right.
Yeah. Ask the 100,000's people that die from fossil fuel pollution in China each year. Or all those that have died in coal mining disasters, or wars fought, in part, for control of oil. Or those who suffer under dictatorial regimes propped up by oil money.
Sure, fossil fuels have got us where we are today, but to argue we shouldn't seek for better sources of energy is just anti-progress.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?