Environmental Concern?

[Oscarthecat]

So basically you don’t want to say whether you think the society of meterologists are in on it (i.e. making biased research for their own “peronsal” gain.

You’re digging yourself deeper and deeper here.

Sure I do- there is tremendous peer pressure on researchers to toe the line- those who disagree have been ostracized and discredited. You have demonstrated this yourself by disregardring the credibility of those scientists who disagree with global warming based on nothing more than the fact that they are in the minority.

That’s no conspiracy, that’s just peer pressure and your fallacious deferral to popular opinion as fact.

Now, no more excuses or dodges for you - for the third time, please answer my two questions.

 

[thomfra]

Sure I do- there is tremendous peer pressure on researchers to toe the line- those who disagree have been ostracized and discredited. You have demonstrated this yourself by disregardring the credibility of those scientists who disagree with global warming based on nothing more than the fact that they are in the minority.

That’s no conspiracy, that’s just peer pressure and your fallacious deferral to popular opinion as fact.

Now, no more excuses or dodges for you - for the third time, please answer my two questions.

Oh, so it’s “peer pressure” now. I thought it was a socialist conspiracy, or some monetry gain that these researchers are after. **Make up your mind. **

If you read my posts, I have not discredited any of the scientists that have research which conflicts with the current understanding of global temperatures. The World Metorologist Organisation or the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate reaseach have most likely reviewed all relevant published research before making any statements.

I have never said that any research should be disregarded. You are just putting words in my mouth. Usually a sign of a weak and disorganised argument.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oh, so it’s “peer pressure” now. I thought it was a socialist conspiracy, or some monetry gain that these researchers are after. **Make up your mind. **

If you read my posts, I have not discredited any of the scientists that have research which conflicts with the current understanding of global temperatures. The World Metorologist Organisation or the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate reaseach have most likely reviewed all relevant published research before making any statements.

I have never said that any research should be disregarded. You are just putting words in my mouth. Usually a sign of a weak and disorganised argument.

I skimmed your reply and decided to ignore it because I didn’t see any answers to the two questions you keep dodging.

 

[thomfra]

I skimmed your reply and decided to ignore it because I didn’t see any answers to the two questions you keep dodging.

You be sure to come on back now. (When you have some material of substance to discuss).

 

[Oscarthecat]

You be sure to come on back now. (When you have some material of substance to discuss).

This is the fifth time you have specifically avoided addressing the two simple questions I posed to you.

I could understand your resistance if the questions included the everyone at the top of the global warming club, like Al Gore. But I knew that would be too unfair and would probably back you into a corner, so I tried to make them easy by just focusing on UN officials.

Please, for the fifth time, answer the two questions I asked you earlier.

I’ll repeat them, for your convenience.

does that mean that you don’t think that UN officials have any kind of agenda?

Do you think that anyone in the UN stands to gain financially or politically by promoting global warming?

By the way, in anticipation of your 5th attempt to avoid the question, don’t bother claiming that you have already answered the question by talking about UN scientists. “UN Officials” includes everyone in bureaucratic/political positions in the UN, which means that some scientists would probaby claim to be UN Officials, but not all UN Officials are scientists.

 

[cynic]

They’re the kind of questions can’t be answered or even speculated on. It’s like asking who was behind the Kennedy shooting, pointless. Either you have proof, or some information at least that points to an agenda, or you don’t.

 

[Oscarthecat]

They’re the kind of questions can’t be answered or even speculated on. It’s like asking who was behind the Kennedy shooting, pointless. Either you have proof, or some information at least that points to an agenda, or you don’t.

These questions can’t be speculated on? What are you talking about? It isn’t as if I’m I’m asking how many UN Officials can sit on the head of a pin.

Why is it that global warming enthusiasts always cry “conspiracy” when anyone brings up the economics of the Kyoto treaty or points out that a large part of Al Gore’s financial dealings hinge on convincing people that Global Warming is a problem.

It is really bizzare that global warming cheerleaders won’t even consider the idea that people in positions of influence might be drawn to the global warming debate because of its relatively new and untapped potential for financial or political gain.

 

[blessedtoo]

It would be great if we could actually RESPOND to the question asked by the OP.

Hi everyone, I was just wondering what the difference is between caring for the environment and going too far. For example, should Catholics be concerned about using nonrenewable resources, even if global warming is false?

The difference, IMO, is the almost religious zeal and fanaticism attached to the “green movement”. In my city, the totalitarian regime of city lawmakers has decided to ban plastic water bottles in all city buildings. No longer can people FREELY bring a bottle of water to work. Our BRILLIANT city government, which has failed to address our crippling traffic problems or overwhelming homeless population issues, has decided to begin charging 20cents for either plastic or PAPER grocery bags at the supermarkets within the Seattle city limits. Never mind the FACT that the countries that have tried this silliness have seen an INCREASE in plastic in landfills because people now have to BUY non-recyclable plastic TRASH bags. And never mind the fact that the majority of Seattlites were opposed to this new TAX on bags.

There is currently crazy talk being whispered about banning single passenger driving.

Want to talk about rights being denied?

I recyle. I haven’t used plastic bags in 10 years (I was led to believe paper was KING, but they’ve apparently changed their tune). I use very little electricity (keep all the lights off in the evening). I run my dishwasher every third day and my clothes get washed in the smallest capacity load on the quickest cycle.

I do my part. I feel no guilt. The crazy zealots who want to micromanage every aspect of our lives will eventually be seen for the power and money hungry gas-bags they are.

 

[thomfra]

It would be great if we could actually RESPOND to the question asked by the OP.

The difference, IMO, is the almost religious zeal and fanaticism attached to the “green movement”. In my city, the totalitarian regime of city lawmakers has decided to ban plastic water bottles in all city buildings. No longer can people FREELY bring a bottle of water to work. Our BRILLIANT city government, which has failed to address our crippling traffic problems or overwhelming homeless population issues, has decided to begin charging 20cents for either plastic or PAPER grocery bags at the supermarkets within the Seattle city limits. Never mind the FACT that the countries that have tried this silliness have seen an INCREASE in plastic in landfills because people now have to BUY non-recyclable plastic TRASH bags. And never mind the fact that the majority of Seattlites were opposed to this new TAX on bags.

There is currently crazy talk being whispered about banning single passenger driving.

Want to talk about rights being denied?

I recyle. I haven’t used plastic bags in 10 years (I was led to believe paper was KING, but they’ve apparently changed their tune). I use very little electricity (keep all the lights off in the evening). I run my dishwasher every third day and my clothes get washed in the smallest capacity load on the quickest cycle.

I do my part. I feel no guilt. The crazy zealots who want to micromanage every aspect of our lives will eventually be seen for the power and money hungry gas-bags they are.

RE: Plastic bag charges: Why don’t people just bring a bag to the supermarket to carry the groceries in? Saves 20c each time? Surley this is not so hard?

I think rather than ban things (like single passenger driving), they should provide an alternative (very good, cheap public transport for example).

 

[mapleoak]

RE: Plastic bag charges: Why don’t people just bring a bag to the supermarket to carry the groceries in? Saves 20c each time? Surley this is not so hard?

It only makes sense if the grocery stores were to give a discount for the inconvenience. Otherwise they are still charging you for the bags whether you use them or not.

 

[thomfra]

It only makes sense if the grocery stores were to give a discount for the inconvenience. Otherwise they are still charging you for the bags whether you use them or not.

You mean you have to pay for plastic bags that you don’t take or use?

If that’s the case, then I agree. That sounds crazy.

Most of the times I have seen this scheme around the world, you either pay for you bags, or you bring your own.

Where I shop in on holidays in France they only sell sturdy re-useable bags, that cost a couple of euro. So you can get caught out if you forget to bring a bag. But you learn fast.

 

[blessedtoo]

You mean you have to pay for plastic bags that you don’t take or use?

If that’s the case, then I agree. That sounds crazy.

Most of the times I have seen this scheme around the world, you either pay for you bags, or you bring your own.

Where I shop in on holidays in France they only sell sturdy re-useable bags, that cost a couple of euro. So you can get caught out if you forget to bring a bag. But you learn fast.

France.

I am an in-home private chef. I am at the grocery story twice a day. I rarely leave the store with less than 5 bags. I use paper exclusively because I can RE-USE them over and over to transport my prepared foods between my clients. I am not willing to purchase and carry with me (everywhere I go) 6 or 7 cloth bags which are inefficient at best and BREEDING grounds for bacteria at worst. I may be conscientious about washing my bags but is the guy in the line before me the same? I don’t want his salmonella and e-coli encrusted cloth bag sitting on the same conveyor belt as my fiju apples and arugula.

My situation is certainly not unique. I feel sorry for large families who are already stressed about managing their children for the trip to the supermarket. Now mama has to worry about bringing her own bags to the store as well?

What about the garbage bag issue? My mom and dad (in their 80’s) have NEVER purchased an actual garbage bag in their whole lives. They have always re-used the RECYCLABLE plastic bags they get from the store. Now, they will be forced to buy regular g. bags, which will almost certainly end up in a landfill. Brilliant.

 

[Swan]

So, does that mean that you don’t think that UN officials have any kind of agenda?

Do you think that anyone in the UN stands to gain financiallyor politically by promoting global warming?

Are you suggesting, then, that these people have an agenda but that folks like big oil and the others who have a vested interested (and a very profitable one) in maintainting the status quo do not have an agenda?

 

[mapleoak]

You mean you have to pay for plastic bags that you don’t take or use?

Yes. Actually it is factored into the price of the food you buy. That is why I say it would only be worth considering if there was a discount on the food you buy. But then there is still the inconvenience factor of remembering to bring bags, and to bring the right amount, and make sure there clean, etc.

 

[mapleoak]

What about the garbage bag issue? My mom and dad (in their 80’s) have NEVER purchased an actual garbage bag in their whole lives. They have always re-used the RECYCLABLE plastic bags they get from the store. Now, they will be forced to buy regular g. bags, which will almost certainly end up in a landfill. Brilliant.

This is another good point. I happen to reuse all of the brown paper bags as garbage bags.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Are you suggesting, then, that these people have an agenda but that folks like big oil and the others who have a vested interested (and a very profitable one) in maintainting the status quo do not have an agenda?

Nope, not suggesting that at all. You’d know that if you had read my posts.

It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about Oil Execs or Al Gore-everybody at the top of the global warming debate, on both sides, is using it to grab as much money and political power as they can.

You probably wouldn’t call me a conspiracy nut for pointing out that oil execs see global warming as a threat to their oil revenues? What if I went one step further by pointing out that oil execs have spent a lot of money to combat the global warming crowd’s restrictive drilling and refinement legislation?

But you probably would call me a conspiracy theorist for pointing out that Al Gore’s interest in encouraging people to buy “carbon offsets” might be motivated in some small part by the fact that he is the chairman of a company he began in 2004 called “Generational Investment Management,” which does “independent global warming and alternative energy research” and earns revenue by investing in alternative energy companies and **commissions from managing private investment accounts marketed as “carbon offsets.” **

And you would definitely call me a conspiracy theorist for telling liberals who get all misty-eyed when they talk about how Al Gore spends hundreds of thousands of his own dollars on carbon credits to maintain a “carbon neutral lifestyle,”** that he is simply investing money in one of his own companies.**

But those aren’t conspiracy theories- they’re well documented examples of how the big players on both sides of this issue have a lot of money riding on what people think about global warming.

 

[thomfra]

But then there is still the inconvenience factor of remembering to bring bags, and to bring the right amount, and make sure there clean, etc.

hmm… Dunno. It’s hardly a major sacrifice though is it? …for a good cause and all.

 

[Oscarthecat]

France.

I am an in-home private chef. I am at the grocery story twice a day. I rarely leave the store with less than 5 bags. I use paper exclusively because I can RE-USE them over and over to transport my prepared foods between my clients. I am not willing to purchase and carry with me (everywhere I go) 6 or 7 cloth bags which are inefficient at best and BREEDING grounds for bacteria at worst. I may be conscientious about washing my bags but is the guy in the line before me the same? I don’t want his salmonella and e-coli encrusted cloth bag sitting on the same conveyor belt as my fiju apples and arugula.

My situation is certainly not unique. I feel sorry for large families who are already stressed about managing their children for the trip to the supermarket. Now mama has to worry about bringing her own bags to the store as well?

What about the garbage bag issue? My mom and dad (in their 80’s) have NEVER purchased an actual garbage bag in their whole lives. They have always re-used the RECYCLABLE plastic bags they get from the store. Now, they will be forced to buy regular g. bags, which will almost certainly end up in a landfill. Brilliant.

It is interesting that you brought up large families, since several influential environmentalists believe that big families should be discouraged or prohibited because they are bad for the environment. Some have even called having large families an “eco-crime.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=203210

So, my guess is that, at best, they’d say that your career, or at least your business model, is unacceptable because your use of plastic bags is bad for the environment- it might even be an eco-crime.

That means that you’re an eco-criminal

 

[mapleoak]

hmm… Dunno. It’s hardly a major sacrifice though is it? …for a good cause and all.

No, its not a major sacrifice. But its hardly something that is worth the bother for a couple of reasons. One, the store is unlikely to give you a discount so you are in effect throwing your money away, which of course they are happy to take from you. Two, since paper is biodegradable, recycling it makes less sense, since in my case I would then have to buy plastic garbage bags, which take much longer to degrade in a landfill. And a package of plastic bags costs much more than the paper bags that your groceries get bagged in. Plus, I cannot go to the store unless I drive back home to pick up bags first which (for those concerned about pollution) causes unneeded exhaust fumes to be expelled. In addition, one has to maintain the cleanliness of the bags as crud starts to accumulate from spilled goods and things like to grow in them. All for a questionable effect on the environment.

 

[thomfra]

It is interesting that you brought up large families, since several influential environmentalists believe that big families should be discouraged or prohibited because they are bad for the environment. Some have even called having large families an “eco-crime.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=203210

So, my guess is that, at best, they’d say that your career, or at least your business model, is unacceptable because your use of plastic bags is bad for the environment- it might even be an eco-crime.

That means that you’re an eco-criminal

I look forward to the day when you come up with something sensible to add to the discussion.