http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1661844120100216

We have let bureaucracy and lunacy take over -- we will rue the day.


Environmental extremism: perhaps the greatest threat to liberty in the world today.

Everyone stop breathing, quick! Carbon dioxide is killing this planet. I can see the slogan now. "Save the Earth, take a life!"

Texas may be one of the few sane places left in the world.

If Texas seriously considered secession, I might move there (depending on the type of government they'd have).

QuakerOats wrote: Environmental extremism: perhaps the greatest threat to liberty in the world today.

You're hilariously misguided.

I Wear Pants wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: Environmental extremism: perhaps the greatest threat to liberty in the world today.

You're hilariously misguided.

You were talking to yourself right?

bigmanbt wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: Environmental extremism: perhaps the greatest threat to liberty in the world today.

You're hilariously misguided.

You were talking to yourself right?

The greatest threat to liberty today? You really think the people that want you to drive a hybrid are the greatest threat to your liberty? How about the wonderful things like the Patriot Act, DMCA, domestic spying, those darned terrorist you right wingers love to shout about?

Despite your opinion on whether we're doing something to cause climate change, there is no way in hell that the EPA is the greatest threat to liberty in the world. You have to be batshit insane to honestly believe that.

Also, when did it become cool to be a fan of brown hazy skies and exhaust fumes in the air? What I'm getting at is, whatever say regulating CO2 is stupid, it may be. But people who disagree with the global warming/climate change theory seem to now be pro-pollution which is asinine.

^^^ Reducing carbon which will do nothing to prevent smog, which is caused by actual pollutants like sulfur dioxide.

Again, I don't have a strong opinion on the Carbon subject. I just think it's a huge stretch to call environmentalists the greatest threat to liberty today.

I Wear Pants wrote: Again, I don't have a strong opinion on the Carbon subject. I just think it's a huge stretch to call environmentalists the greatest threat to liberty today.

Less of a stretch than the following statement.

I Wear Pants wrote: Also, when did it become cool to be a fan of brown hazy skies and exhaust fumes in the air? What I'm getting at is, whatever say regulating CO2 is stupid, it may be. But people who disagree with the global warming/climate change theory seem to now be pro-pollution which is asinine.

Pro-pollution is that kind of like unpatriotic because you did not buy what the government was selling concerning the threat from Iraq. So some aren't buying what the government is selling concerning man made global warming and now their pro-pollution.

I Wear Pants wrote: Again, I don't have a strong opinion on the Carbon subject. I just think it's a huge stretch to call environmentalists the greatest threat to liberty today.

Perhaps "greatest" is a stretch, but if one believes their goal is simply to clean up the environment, one is extremely naive. It's a political movement aimed at taking from the productive and giving to the less productive.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Also, when did it become cool to be a fan of brown hazy skies and exhaust fumes in the air? What I'm getting at is, whatever say regulating CO2 is stupid, it may be. But people who disagree with the global warming/climate change theory seem to now be pro-pollution which is asinine.

You do know you just lost all credibility on this subject.

CO2 does not cause smog.

SOx (sulfur oxides) is the main cause of smog. NOx (nitrous oxides) also have a damaging effect on the local climate with ground level ozone and acid rain.

So please, step back from the conversation as CO2 has zero to do with smog.

jmog wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Also, when did it become cool to be a fan of brown hazy skies and exhaust fumes in the air? What I'm getting at is, whatever say regulating CO2 is stupid, it may be. But people who disagree with the global warming/climate change theory seem to now be pro-pollution which is asinine.

You do know you just lost all credibility on this subject.

CO2 does not cause smog.

SOx (sulfur oxides) is the main cause of smog. NOx (nitrous oxides) also have a damaging effect on the local climate with ground level ozone and acid rain.

So please, step back from the conversation as CO2 has zero to do with smog.

I wasn't trying to say that CO2 causes smog, perhaps I worded it poorly.

I was trying to mention that, at least in the people I know that are anti-global warming/environmentalism/whatever, it has become almost a hobby to pollute or at least take pollution as a stab at environmentalists. That's what the hazy skies thing was about. I can see where that wouldn't have been clear from my post, sorry.

And yes, there are people who are benefiting financially and politically from the environmental minded movement. But that can also be said for it's detractors.

I'm all for local pollution control, cause no one wants to live in a dump. And I'm for clean energy, if it's more efficient and less expensive. I still can't believe we haven't drilled in Alaska yet and put the pipeline in. God forbid the moose up there have to duck under the metal pipeline.

I Wear Pants wrote: I was trying to mention that, at least in the people I know that are anti-global warming/environmentalism/whatever, it has become almost a hobby to pollute or at least take pollution as a stab at environmentalists. That's what the hazy skies thing was about. I can see where that wouldn't have been clear from my post, sorry.

What the hell are these people you know doing? Are they dumping their used motor oil in the local creek?

bigmanbt wrote: I'm all for local pollution control, cause no one wants to live in a dump. And I'm for clean energy, if it's more efficient and less expensive. I still can't believe we haven't drilled in Alaska yet and put the pipeline in. God forbid the moose up there have to duck under the metal pipeline.

Studies have shown that most animals are actually flourishing near the pipeline because of the warmth it provides.

He didn't fucking say CO2 caused smog!!!!!LOL.....

superman wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: I'm all for local pollution control, cause no one wants to live in a dump. And I'm for clean energy, if it's more efficient and less expensive. I still can't believe we haven't drilled in Alaska yet and put the pipeline in. God forbid the moose up there have to duck under the metal pipeline.

Studies have shown that most animals are actually flourishing near the pipeline because of the warmth it provides.

Yeah I've actually seen pictures of birds making their nests on the pipelines cause of the warmth. I just didn't wanna have to go find the picture so i omitted it. lol

I Wear Pants wrote: Again, I don't have a strong opinion on the Carbon subject. I just think it's a huge stretch to call environmentalists the greatest threat to liberty today.

It is not a stretch at all; you obviously have little business experience with federal and state epa agencies, or the radicals therein who have been effectively afforded dictatorships within these bureaucracies.

I find it hard to believe that most "anti-GW" people are poluting as much as they can.

In particular I'm a firm believer that we aren't causing GW with CO2, and I drive a 35+ MPG car, am all for any form of energy/conservation that gets us off foreign oil, I use CFLs in my house, I try to keep the thermostat low in the winter and high in the summer, keep lights/TVs off in rooms no one is in, etc.

I'm big on conservation, but definitely anti-AGW.

Oh, and I've worked for years in research in the field of combustion emissions, so I understand the real dangers of SOx, NOx, CO, and CO2.

People like QuakerOats and others on the right think the green movement is a threat to liberty because they believe liberals will use climate change as a means to redistribute wealth in some way and that liberty will sacrificed for the security of the earth when in their minds, the security of the earth is of no concern because humans have nothing to do with global warming and it's a fallacy for us to think we're so special that we could cause drastic changes in climate on a planet.

Edit: (No Flame to those on the right...just trying to state why the statement "biggest threat to liberty we face" was stated.) I might argue that rapid rise in the cost of entitlements are potentially more of a threat to individual liberty in the name of collective security.

BoatShoes wrote: People like QuakerOats and others on the right think the green movement is a threat to liberty because they believe liberals will use climate change as a means to redistribute wealth in some way and that liberty will sacrificed for the security of the earth when in their minds, the security of the earth is of no concern because humans have nothing to do with global warming and it's a fallacy for us to think we're so special that we could cause drastic changes in climate on a planet.

I think a lot of posters here think there is not enough evidence to say for certainty that CO2 causes global warming. (I think the "we're too insignifcant to cause drastic changes to the planet" argument is a little bogus. That's the left trying to generalize anyone who doesn't support global warming into a group of idiots.) When Cap and trade is a real possibility I think that gives their argument some weight.

There are people who do want to take care of the earth and some of them believe that CO2 causes global warming. There are also people (probably politicians mostly) who see global warming as a means to redistribute wealth. I think those two groups get lumped together because they have one common issue and that's why some people on the right are anti-green.

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: I was trying to mention that, at least in the people I know that are anti-global warming/environmentalism/whatever, it has become almost a hobby to pollute or at least take pollution as a stab at environmentalists. That's what the hazy skies thing was about. I can see where that wouldn't have been clear from my post, sorry.

What the hell are these people you know doing? Are they dumping their used motor oil in the local creek?

I have seriously seen similar things.

You know, burning tires when they have cut firewood sitting there. Throwing the pop cans in the fire instead of recycling them. One removed the catalytic converter from his vehicle.

No, these aren't the norm for people who disagree with climate change but it's the type of people that I encounter who do.

I Wear Pants wrote: I have seriously seen similar things.

You know, burning tires when they have cut firewood sitting there. Throwing the pop cans in the fire instead of recycling them. One removed the catalytic converter from his vehicle.

No, these aren't the norm for people who disagree with climate change but it's the type of people that I encounter who do.

Guy better not get caught without his cat conv, hefty fine.

Pop cans in a fire really don't do much to the environment.

Now, burning tires in a regular bon fire, yeah, thats not so good. There are some nasty oxygenated cyclo-organic VOCs than can form in a non-fully combusting smoldering temperatures like a bonfire with rubber compounds.

Now, cutting tires up into small pieces and complete combusting them is a different story, like in a solid combustion system like coal or wood chip combustors is a different story.

The pop cans don't really pollute but it's so damned easy to recycle. My town actually has a guy that goes around on a golf cart everyday and pics up the cans people leave out for him, I think he gets money for it or something. But seriously, it's as easy as sticking the bag by the road here.

Again, not necessarily the norm with the people who disagree with climate change but it's alarming the amount of people I encounter who endorse or find enjoyment in the activities being done, even if they aren't doing them just to stick it to the hippies.

Most of you know more about the subject than I do, I just think that like most things both sides probably have valid points. So when I see that me buying a gallon of milk in a plastic jug is killing polar bears or that there is no way in hell, ever that we could have even the minutest of influences on climate I try to shift back to the middle.

No one is happy when the middle ground is taken but it's often the right thing to do. Feel free to inundate me with facts to the contrary but just know that I'm not pretending to be an expert but merely think that the idea that either we massively affect the environment or we can't affect the environment is pretty silly.