[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 03:55:26 07/02/17 Sun
Author: Lots of problems
Subject: I think it's a case of "If they're for it, I'm against it." (more)
In reply to:
's message, "Ok, so I have a question. What is against conserving natural resources and emitting fewer polutants?" on 18:55:42 06/18/17 Sun
But it goes deeper than that. (OK, so this got really long!)
Way back, I guess this was a hippie movement, so conservative and religious people knee jerked that it was bad.
Protecting and preserving the earth is something that we can all get on board with, but the "how" is the big problem. The biggest faces of the global warming movement are a bunch of hypocrites. Why am I going to do what they tell me to do when they are doing the exact opposite? How is my thermostat at three degrees warmer than I'm comfortable with going to help *anything* when the very people who tell me to do it that way live luxurious lifestyles...surely any savings/protection that I contribute will be mitigated by a short time of their lives. They say it's ok because they pay carbon taxes? Do carbon taxes really reduce anything? Do they protect the environment? It's quite a racket they've got going.
Environmentalists have been predicting the end of the world for quite some time, now. They predicted worldwide famine as the population grew. They did not predict improved science of production and distribution that would keep pace with the population.
People in cities tend to be big over population believers. A short ride out of the city, into places like Pennsylvania and Virginia reveal tons and tons of land and nature. I have heard, many times, that the world's population could fit in Texas...close quarters, but no worse than in cities. I'm not sure if that's actually true...Texas is big (not nearly as big as Alaska!), but I'm positive the world could fit in the US.
The biggest problem that this conservative has with today's environmental movement is that it's based on many lies and it seeks to intrude on personal freedom.
The computer models predicted global warming. In reality, the temps have not been warming. So let's call it Climate Change, instead. And also, let's go back in the records and remove and/or change the *actual recorded temperatures* because with those numbers, our predictions don't work out so well.
Follow the money. Conservation is good. That's not what the global warming folks are talking about. They are about money and control.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |