Has environmental evangelism replaced the religious envagelism?

[SocketRocket]

I completed a degree in environmental science 15 years ago in my spare time for giggles. That’s what has helped formed my opinion. Do you have a degree in google?

Your degree didnt take away your ability to be a sarcastic [Mod Edit] You use the typical socialist methodology of personal attack in place of debate as its a lazier way of scoring points.

I explained my reason for posting the list of scientests but you prefer to ignore that and persist in cheap insults. I admire your accedemic achievement and do inderstand it takes more than an affinity with giggles to achieve, I have degrees in Enginerring and Business Management although I declined a fellowship in the Chartered Institute of Flat Earth Fanatics as I didnt like the Uniform or Dancing.

 

[Hitdaball]

Your degree didnt take away your ability to be a sarcastic [Mod Edit] You use the typical socialist methodology of personal attack in place of debate as its a lazier way of scoring points.

I explained my reason for posting the list of scientests but you prefer to ignore that and persist in cheap insults. I admire your accedemic achievement and do inderstand it takes more than an affinity with giggles to achieve, I have degrees in Enginerring and Business Management although I declined a fellowship in the Chartered Institute of Flat Earth Fanatics as I didnt like the Uniform or Dancing.

I did post some information to deride the nonsense and point out the pointlessness of your list . Nonsense can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Given your MO in forum posts I didn’t expect you to spit the dummy so soon but I often misjudge, from my corbinista bunker here in Cuba it’s hard to get a clear view. 👍🏻

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I hardly think it’s comparable, a degree in Engineering is a world class degree that has real use in Aeronautical and automotive industries. A part time Environmental sciences degree is the degree of choice for Baristas. (Or geography teachers in the local comp)

You really should read posts before you reply and try to make yourself look clever!

He said “I completed a degree in environmental science 15 years ago in my spare time” why not ask him what he was doing the rest of the time instead of claiming he has a “part time Environmental sciences degree”

It’s laughable you try and demean another person’s degree of any sort.

 

[Hitdaball]

You really should read posts before you reply and try to make yourself look clever!

He said “I completed a degree in environmental science 15 years ago in my spare time” why not ask him what he was doing the rest of the time instead of claiming he has a “part time Environmental sciences degree”

It’s laughable you try and demean another person’s degree of any sort.

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

Oh for shame @Fade and Die looks like someone copied your post before you deleted it to save yourself embarrassment.

I’m sure @SocketRocket doesn’t need you to play too trumps with our qualifications, he seems pretty capable of fighting his own battles. You should probably utilise that time doing some reading up on Climate Change instead 😜

Jog on mate 😂

 

[Fade and Die]

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

Oh for shame @Fade and Die looks like someone copied your post before you deleted it to save yourself embarrassment.

I’m sure @SocketRocket doesn’t need you to play too trumps with our qualifications, he seems pretty capable of fighting his own battles. You should probably utilise that time doing some reading up on Climate Change instead 😜

Jog on mate 😂

I sent a message to Paul that said

I have deleted my post after reading fraggers mum has just died. I do think an environmental degree is pretty worthless but I do not want to get in a slanging match at this time.

I stand by this.

 

[SocketRocket]

I did post some information to deride the nonsense and point out the pointlessness of your list . Nonsense can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Given your MO in forum posts I didn’t expect you to spit the dummy so soon but I often misjudge, from my corbinista bunker here in Cuba it’s hard to get a clear view. 👍🏻

If you deride the views of the accedemics I posted then explain why they are wrong. It may portray you more as someone enlightened in the subject rather than assinous.

 

[Hitdaball]

If you deride the views of the accedemics I posted then explain why they are wrong. It may portray you more as someone enlightened in the subject rather than assinous.

The point is that the overwhelming concensus amongst the scientific community is that climate change is being hugely influenced by man made CO2 emissions. We don’t need to seriously debate why a few outliers are different any more than we would need to debate the few people who claim the world is flat.

But.

Let’s accept the possibility that the consensus is wrong - the precautionary principle would still mean we should act in such a way as to discount that possibility. 😆

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I am making the point that going to google and picking out a list that supports your preferred view is not a way to argue your case when its possible to do the same and produce a contrary view. Thats why I did it, hopefully showing how shallow an arguement that is.
Read the post above for a sensible responce.

So is google not a great method of research? Someone asked for proof that it’s not myth and I produced scientific proof from fully qualified scientists- why is it shallow or any less valid because it’s come from google ?

Would it be more valid if I went to a library and found the publication and then copied it ?

 

[Hobbit]

If 97% of scientific papers state that human creation of CO2 is significantly impacting global warming, I'm inclined to agree that humans are causing the problem. And if humans are not only the main cause for the increase in CO2, and the obvious reason for the reduction on CO2 sinks, i.e. the removal of forests, I'm very much inclined to believe that humans are causing global warming. And if the trend graph climbs in-line with industrialisation there is a fairly obvious conclusion.

And if someone wants to believe 3% of the academics instead of 97% of the academics, you've got to look at them with a bit of scepticism.

 

[Twire]

Fella's, please debate without getting personal.

To many threads are being ruined by petty, personal, point scoring comments. If it carrys on I'll lock the thread and issue infractions.

 

[SocketRocket]

If 97% of scientific papers state that human creation of CO2 is significantly impacting global warming, I'm inclined to agree that humans are causing the problem. And if humans are not only the main cause for the increase in CO2, and the obvious reason for the reduction on CO2 sinks, i.e. the removal of forests, I'm very much inclined to believe that humans are causing global warming. And if the trend graph climbs in-line with industrialisation there is a fairly obvious conclusion.

And if someone wants to believe 3% of the academics instead of 97% of the academics, you've got to look at them with a bit of scepticism.

I am not suggesting those Scientests supporting human activities being a major influence on climate change are wrong, my post was to portray that cutting and pasting a list of supporters is not the best way to promote this belief. Its possible to trawl the internet and find articles to support almost any theory, I did it myself. A poster gave his views on Climate change and why he disagreed with the belief that most of it is caused by human activity, I guess he is entitled to his opinion. If someone wants to disagree then surely the correct way is to disprove those views rather than using sarcasm and suggesting anyone with such views are stupid.

 

[bobmac]

How about we try and suggest ways of fixing the problem that the vast majority of experts IN THIS FIELD agree is happening.

 

[SocketRocket]

How about we try and suggest ways of fixing the problem that the vast majority of experts IN THIS FIELD agree is happening.

The real problem is that Homo Sapiens have overpopulated the planet and are destroying its ecco systems. Population is still increasing at unsustainable levels.

Does anyone here have ideas on how we fix that as unless its fixed anything else is just fiddling with symptoms.

 

[bobmac]

So we either reduce the population or we use clean, cheap energy that doesn't pollute the environment.

 

[USER1999]

It's not just energy though, is it. It's burning forest to cultivate beef, it's bunging plastics in the ocean, it's unplugging oil wells in Africa to liberate a bucket of oil, and flooding acres with it when you don't turn it off, it's littering in general, it's an attitude of stuff you mate, I am ok.

It is a selfish world out there.

 

[bobmac]

It's not just energy though, is it. It's burning forest to cultivate beef, it's bunging plastics in the ocean, it's unplugging oil wells in Africa to liberate a bucket of oil, and flooding acres with it when you don't turn it off, it's littering in general, it's an attitude of stuff you mate, I am ok.

It is a selfish world out there.

I agree, but we've all got to breath and it's a good place to start.
Maybe the religious evangelists could use some of their spare millions to help finance initiatives to clean up the planet. Maybe they could even lift the ban on contraception which would help with population growth, especially in some of the developing countries.

 

[Fade and Die]

Whenever anything related to environmental issues comes up, there are always those that are so forceful with there views and what you should be doing just as there used to be those so forthright in their religious views.
But now it seems there are (thankfully) fewer religious preachers, but they seem to be outnumbered by the environmental preachers.
Is this something you find?

To bring this back to the original post by Bunker Magnet and his question
“ Has environmental evangelism replaced the religious envagelism?“

I think this thread has given us a resounding answer, YES! they are just another fundamentalist, as intolerant of other people’s views as anyone from The Finsbury Park Mosque or The Westboro Baptist Church!😂

 

[SocketRocket]

So we either reduce the population or we use clean, cheap energy that doesn't pollute the environment.

Energy is a scarce resorce, most of the earths population dont have much access to it. What about when more of these people want more energy by either moving to wealthier countries or developing it in their current ones, will renewables be able to cope with the demand?

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Perhaps we should all be thinking more about water..........

 

[bobmac]

Energy is a scarce resorce, most of the earths population dont have much access to it. What about when more of these people want more energy by either moving to wealthier countries or developing it in their current ones, will renewables be able to cope with the demand?

Renewable energy is what it says on the tin.......renewable.

Oil and gas will run out between 50 and 60 years time so we have no choice.
Renewable won't
Renewable is the cheapest, cleanest source of power available today and will only get cheaper as more wind and solar come online.
Granted the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow but battery technology is improving all the time which means we store the power for use when the sun doesn't shine

https://constructionreviewonline.com/2018/08/ghana-to-construct-largest-solar-farm/