FA+
Shop
Statistically the average person has less than two legs.
17 years ago
General
There are a lot of people who wont socialise or interact with other humans, because of their views on the environment, or more accurately, because they don't care about climate change. Climate change was formerly known as global warming, but since the only hot air that's coming is from the mouths of the environmentalists, and the world's weather isn't heating up at all, it's been altered.
Now, before I get onto my main point, I'd like to say something to those of you that are "green" and do care about ecology. Firstly, I care too, I watch birds and would like to explore and adventure, I recycle wherever I can, and though I do like machines, nature has a grand majesty, and to destroy it would be very sad indeed. However, it's a popular misconception that the planet is being used up, worn out, even killed. This is the idea which is driving the whole eco-friendly movement, and I'm sorry, but it's bollocks.
Scientists tell shocking stories of huge floods, but are there not already floods? Have there not been floods for thousands of years? (The River Nile in Egypt floods every year, the people living along its banks rely on that for their survival; mankind can use floods to it's advantage.) So what's different? Scientists tell of droughts and crop failures. Again, that's happened for centuries. Some places will get worse, some will get better. We'll just grow the crops where they grow best. We do that already, and have done for centuries. There is no change. There's no change with anything, really. If the Gulf Stream peters out and stops, the United Kingdom will freeze, literally, it'll have the same kind of climate as Finland. So? People survive in Finland. Wildlife survives in Finland. Trees and businesses survive in Finland. The only problem is that those who enjoy the warmth would have to move to somewhere warmer, which is no problem really because climate change will make some places warmer. Just like growing crops where they grow best, people will move where they like it best.
Because I can see this, I don't worry about my "carbon footprint" - I don't even have a carbon footprint, because I'm usually driving a car. Eight miles to the gallon. But the environmentalists don't see this, they don't think logically, they haven't worked out the pushme-pullyu effect that somewhere getting warmer will mean somewhere else getting colder. Or maybe they do, and just have a special kind of hatred for the machine. A hatred that extends to casual users of that machine as well.
Just this week I was politely told "I'm sorry, I don't want to talk to you" by a friends-of-the-earth type, who had been quite happy to discuss with me the horrors of the Australian bushfires, the digital television switch-over this year, and Irish music. The topic turns to vehicles and climate change, I happen to mention that I still drive a sports car, because I know climate change isn't the death of the planet, and I get told "sorry, I don't want to talk to you."
This kind of thing has happened before, with a non-propaganda newspaper column rather like this one, the eco-worriers wrote in in their hundreds to complain to the editor about how the column left out "facts" and that to rectify its mistake, it should print some of the propaganda they've fabricated. Even the government does it. Tax on cars is higher for cars which emit higher levels of carbon (dioxide/monoxide) and in some areas of Britain, tax is applied to waste and refuse collection, higher taxes given to those who recycle less. For this reason, the government backing, the hatred environmentalists have for the ordinary person is not so much like a witch-hunt any more. It's borderline Nazi.
Now, before I get onto my main point, I'd like to say something to those of you that are "green" and do care about ecology. Firstly, I care too, I watch birds and would like to explore and adventure, I recycle wherever I can, and though I do like machines, nature has a grand majesty, and to destroy it would be very sad indeed. However, it's a popular misconception that the planet is being used up, worn out, even killed. This is the idea which is driving the whole eco-friendly movement, and I'm sorry, but it's bollocks.
Scientists tell shocking stories of huge floods, but are there not already floods? Have there not been floods for thousands of years? (The River Nile in Egypt floods every year, the people living along its banks rely on that for their survival; mankind can use floods to it's advantage.) So what's different? Scientists tell of droughts and crop failures. Again, that's happened for centuries. Some places will get worse, some will get better. We'll just grow the crops where they grow best. We do that already, and have done for centuries. There is no change. There's no change with anything, really. If the Gulf Stream peters out and stops, the United Kingdom will freeze, literally, it'll have the same kind of climate as Finland. So? People survive in Finland. Wildlife survives in Finland. Trees and businesses survive in Finland. The only problem is that those who enjoy the warmth would have to move to somewhere warmer, which is no problem really because climate change will make some places warmer. Just like growing crops where they grow best, people will move where they like it best.
Because I can see this, I don't worry about my "carbon footprint" - I don't even have a carbon footprint, because I'm usually driving a car. Eight miles to the gallon. But the environmentalists don't see this, they don't think logically, they haven't worked out the pushme-pullyu effect that somewhere getting warmer will mean somewhere else getting colder. Or maybe they do, and just have a special kind of hatred for the machine. A hatred that extends to casual users of that machine as well.
Just this week I was politely told "I'm sorry, I don't want to talk to you" by a friends-of-the-earth type, who had been quite happy to discuss with me the horrors of the Australian bushfires, the digital television switch-over this year, and Irish music. The topic turns to vehicles and climate change, I happen to mention that I still drive a sports car, because I know climate change isn't the death of the planet, and I get told "sorry, I don't want to talk to you."
This kind of thing has happened before, with a non-propaganda newspaper column rather like this one, the eco-worriers wrote in in their hundreds to complain to the editor about how the column left out "facts" and that to rectify its mistake, it should print some of the propaganda they've fabricated. Even the government does it. Tax on cars is higher for cars which emit higher levels of carbon (dioxide/monoxide) and in some areas of Britain, tax is applied to waste and refuse collection, higher taxes given to those who recycle less. For this reason, the government backing, the hatred environmentalists have for the ordinary person is not so much like a witch-hunt any more. It's borderline Nazi.
# Fingers riding wind,
Flickering life back to that body,
I forgot what that felt like.
When twilight came, I swallowed it whole.
I'm beaming from moonlight.
Sssshining through.
Half past that minute,
it's gone... #
I'm on your side. :3
Exactly my point, you don't hate someone, or think them to be a horrible ignorant selfish monster, if they don't try as hard as you to achieve something you believe in. You tolerate. But environmentalists can't.
Thanks, I'm glad someone rode my train of thought there.
No prob.
Here in Sweden we now have pollen alerts in December, tropical heat during summer, farmers' crops wither away because of the heat, and the Baltic Sea is dying because of poisonous algae that thrive in the increased water temperature.
As for the Gulf Stream, it carries a lot of heat away from the Mexican Gulf. Without it, Europe will freeze, yes, but what will happen when you switch off the AC for everything from the Amazonas to Florida?
I'm not saying that the militants are right in everything they say and do. I don't approve of fanatics of any kind. But something is wrong with the weather, all over the world.
So Sweden is heating up at the moment, but what about if/when the Gulf Stream does slow down? It'll cool down again, and be back to normal. I'm not saying it's not happening, because it clearly is, but going on a crusade to put less water in your kettle, or drive a Toyota Prius, isn't going to change it, and neither is alienating those who choose not to surrender their way of life for it. Nothing is "wrong" with the weather. It's not broken, it's still up there, doing what it does. It's just doing it a little differently, and in different places.
It's beginning to affect the wildlife, too. Rabbit, squirrels, ferrets and other animals who change into white fur during winter are easily picked off by predators and birds of prey during snowless winters, and animals like arctic foxes and polar bears are dying out.
I'm not saying it's right to force people to change their lifestyles, because it's not, but the least everyone could do is give it some thought. If people change one light bulb into a low energy lamp, or if they'd walk instead of driving once, they've made a difference. It doesn't take very much from each person.
If they stopped producing the petrol powered car, there would be a lot more damage done to the Earth because I'd go on a massive rampage, I'm sure along with others.
Green was my favorite colour up until a few years ago...
Apparently because of climate change, the killer bee is heading to Europe.
When he gets here, I'll crush the little bugger.
What we really need to do is stop those volcanoes and naturally occurring wildfires from spouting out a majority of that gas the environmentalist get hyped up about.
Goddam volcanoes...
Seems like everyone has forgotten about the Brazilian rainforest. Cut the trees down, which means less carbon dioxide is turned into oxygen, and then use the deforested land to ranch cattle, which produce a surprisingly large amount of methane. It's a double-hit. Shame it's no longer fashionable to give a toss about it though. They'd rather lock you up for having a patio heater. Or a Jeep. I like the Wrangler a lot, and filling up every other week isn't too bad. I can only do about 70 miles per tank with my sports car (I have an ordinary car for daily use though) so I have to fill it up almost every journey.
I'm not sure how you'd stop a volcano, and if there was a prevention for wildfires that worked well, I think we'd be using it already. Back in the late 1970s the buzz-words were "ozone layer" and how, because we were using CFCs and other chemicals, the ozone layer was being broken down. There wasn't enough of it. Now it's called "greenhouse gas" and we have too much of it.
Brilliantly put.
For once, I have nothing to add or argue. You've said it all there.
Personally I've always disliked the term "Save the planet", since we cant "save the planet", but we can save whats ON it. Cuz even if we'd nuke the shit out of earth, the planet would still be here right? Sure, radioactive and uninhabitable. But it would still be here
Kiiind of.
It's possible, with a large enough nuke, to knock the world off its orbit (like a massive rocket propelled space ship) and send it spinning either off into the barren wilderness of the galaxy, or whirling into the sun. Depending on whether the nuke goes off during the day or the night.
But tbh, I've always wanted to do a "Hitler" against certain things...
Like HIV/AIDS
That could have been avoided by a hitler... come to think of it... we do it a few times, but mostly against things like birds and cattle...
"Americans. Can't live with 'em, can't commit genocide."
- Si
I think a lot of people feel the way you do,
that it's time we had a Hitler, time we straightened the world out.
Nowdays, all we do is throw the back on the street and tell them "please don't infect more people" and give them some medicine (if they can afford it that is)
Bad news.
AIDS is now in the animal kingdom.
Because of the spread of AIDS in South Africa, (because they keep trying to give them medicines, instead of just wiping them out) the lions and tigers and things which eat the AIDS suffering humans from Mozambique now have feline AIDS. It's suspected that jackals may also have a variant of it, which means it's adaptable to spread through canid species. If it gets into the oceans, it's "goodnight, mister life-on-Earth."
And somehow just ignore the fact they have hiv... somehow...
But wiping them out I could have accepted when it just were a few hundred with it... but now?
My kill limit is kinda by a few hundred and sometimes a thousand.
But tbh, they are the ones that rape earth the least. (except animals... ok well most animals) So they kinda don't deserve teh aids... should have started in USA or something.... starting with Bush... oh... just thinking of that makes me aroused eheh...
Ooh, funny story that happened to me the other day:
So our friend invites us to come to his show at a bar, where he play classical piano. He's also amazing at it. But before hand, sitting at the table, the conversation turns to Jeff and Tana, and Jeff is saying how Tana has to eat every single bite of food on her plate, because she worrys about the starving people of the world and never wants to waste anything. She doesn't throw any food out.
Adam says that that's not an issue of worry, rather more of an issue of knowing. Most people waste food because they're ignorant to the fact that others are starving.
I interject, "Not so. I know all about the starving kids. That why I laugh and take great pleasure in throwing out food I didn't eat." I then make scooping motion with my hands, all the while with my 'evil face' and 'evil laughter,' going "Ahahaha! Take that, you little bastards!" Adam look half offended and half amused.
I pay for my food, and I can do what I like with it.
As for the issue of knowing, lets put it this way. There's supposed to be millions of people starving in Africa. Millions of people is a shitload of manpower. If they all got off their arses and did some work, rather than spreading their diseases and moping about in the sun letting flies eat them alive, they would be an almost unstoppable force, and could achieve almost anything.
I am not an A$$Hole, I am tact-impaired....
You're very wise.
I can handle lack of tact, though. It seems that a lot (probably most) online can't, however. It's particularly so in the "Generation Y" age group. Younger people who wilfully take as much offense as possible for the sake of drama. It's also particularly common, and I say this with as open of a mind as possible, among muslims and those of a non-white ethnic background.
There's a popular oxmoronic statement which goes, "There's one thing I really cannot tolerate; people who are intolerant." But in cases of desperate-to-try-and-be-offended internet-drama-queens, it's actually not all that ridiculous.
Just no art critique.
It's useless to me, as I can't change the picture (to everyone's whim) after its finished, and I'm also not on a crusade to be the best artist I can be. I'm happy enough doing what I do at the level I do it to. I make mistakes, and I see them. I don't need them pointed out. My watchers, and the people that comment on my art are brilliant though. They say if they like the picture, sometimes crack a joke, say what it means to them, or what is does for them, or say why otherwise they like it, and that's it. That's what I like, they see it as it's intended, as a piece of artwork, not as a diagram of a scene which is either right or wrong.