74
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 05:57 pm
okie wrote:
Haven't you ever noticed that environmental groups rarely pick on communist countries regardless of how bad the pollution is, the water is undrinkable, etc.?
Maybe the water is not drinkable over there but Vodka is :wink: And maybe they communists are vacinated against state intervention so dear to greenies, or maybe being green is the privilege given only to the prosperous and the iddle, not really a common strait in ex-communist countries.

What is sure anyway is that secular Europe has found a new religion after the communist utopia had collapsed: that is environmentalism (well, not so sure that communism has really disappeared since my dear President Chirac talked recently about a "world governement" for climate matters, brrr).
And as with any religion, you have the credulous, the bigot, the guru, the preacher, the church attendance called Save the Earth Rally, Stop Climate Chaos Party, Biodiversity Day, Ban GMO Feast ...
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 06:25 pm
miniTAX wrote:
What is sure anyway is that secular Europe has found a new religion after the communist utopia had collapsed


miniTAX, if that "is sure anyway", please tell me the percentage of the population of secular Western Europe that believed in communism while the USSR still existed opposed to the percentage of the population of secular Western Europe that believed in communism after the USSR had collapsed.

Hardly a difference, I'd say. Maybe even more people leaning communist now, for nostalgic reasons, than when the Soviet Union still was around.

And, for some reason, you missed Walter's point that the churches in Europe are playing and have been playing for a long time a very active role in the environmentalist movement.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 10:14 pm
People have to believe in something and live for something. If God isn't in the equation, then the state can solve all the problems, but in the case of communism, well that didn't work out so well, so lets Save the Earth! Oh yes, the very sacred "Earth Day," as if man has the capability of saving it. And of course a very big government will be necessary to stop the insanity of pollution and all the selfish, greedy corporations that are destroying the Earth. As cyclops points out, corporations would destroy us all without government to save the day.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 12:16 am
What surprises me a bit - or what doesn't, actually - is that the tone, the arguments, now change to silly prejudices.

If such works for you, okie and miniTAX, you certainly don't mind that I make up an opinion about your credentials as well.

okie wrote:
Quote:
If God isn't in the equation, then the state can solve all the problems, but in the case of communism, well that didn't work out so well, so lets Save the Earth!


I'm not what you would call generally religious. And although I'm Catholic (and my wife Evangelical), we both don't follow exactly "church lines".
But I certainly agree that saving the environment is a high Christian virtue and discrediting such with the above is .... well, it proves something about your character.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 02:59 am
old europe wrote:
miniTAX, if that "is sure anyway", please tell me the percentage of the population of secular Western Europe that believed in communism while the USSR still existed opposed to the percentage of the population of secular Western Europe that believed in communism after the USSR had collapsed.

Hardly a difference, I'd say. Maybe even more people leaning communist now, for nostalgic reasons, than when the Soviet Union still was around.

And, for some reason, you missed Walter's point that the churches in Europe are playing and have been playing for a long time a very active role in the environmentalist movement.
"Hardly a difference" you said ?
I disagree. In France, the communist party got more than 15% presidential votes in the 1980s. Now at the last 2002 presidential election, it got less than 4%.
As to the church 's role, even if you can cite isolated examples like Archbishop of Canteburry who is a devout climate change alarmist, it won't refute the fact that Europe is much more secular than the USA or Japan.

"When men have ceased to believe in Christianity, it is not that they will believe in nothing. They will believe in anything." - G.K. Chesterton.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:03 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
What surprises me a bit - or what doesn't, actually - is that the tone, the arguments, now change to silly prejudices.
Hey don't get me wrong Walter. I told about the new religion of environmentalism, not about the old ones. Exclamation
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:08 am
miniTAX wrote:
I disagree. In France, the communist party got more than 15% presidential votes in the 1980s. Now at the last 2002 presidential election, it got less than 4%.


Hue received 3.4% of the votes in the 2002 presidential elections.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:16 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
I disagree. In France, the communist party got more than 15% presidential votes in the 1980s. Now at the last 2002 presidential election, it got less than 4%.


Hue received 3.4% of the votes in the 2002 presidential elections.

In 1981, Geoges Marchais, a close friend to Brejnev, got 15% !
http://francepolitique.free.fr/PPCF.htm
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 07:18 am
Okay. So mini's and okie's theory is that all the former communists, a godless bunch of people who want to curtail individual freedom and believe in an almighty state, collectively turned green and now form the environmentalist movement.

So I'm wondering: is the National Association of Evangelicals, America's largest evangelical group, really just a covert communist organization? Are they just pretending to believe in Christianity? Do all the 30 million members really want to establish a Soviet state in the USA?

And what did Rev Richard Cizik, Washington representative for the NAE, really mean when he said

Quote:
"When we die and each one of us meets our maker, He is not going to say, 'How did I create the world?' He is going to say, 'What did you do with what I created?' And why do I know that? Because Genesis 2:15 says we are stewards in charge of creation 'to watch over it carefully'.

"How can you 'love your neighbour as yourself' if you are willing to let millions be subject to flooding and droughts caused by greenhouse gases which we, Americans, are responsible for?"


There, I did it. I quoted an evangelical who is saying that we have to "protect God's creation".

Now I'd like to know how that fits into the current godless-communists-turned-green conspiracy theory...
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 08:22 am
old europe wrote:
Okay. So mini's and okie's theory is that all the former communists, a godless bunch of people who want to curtail individual freedom and believe in an almighty state, collectively turned green and now form the environmentalist movement.
That' may be what Okie said but not me even if I have some reasons to think he is right. The greenies are often the most vocal collectivists, statists and alter-mondialists.

I said atheist Europeans are perhaps the most faithfull in AGW (dont' forget the "A") because they need more than others to believe in something. That's my opinion and I respect it Laughing
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 08:28 am
The Evangelical bishop of Magedeburg is one of the heaviest suuporters of a "green policy" - well, Magdeburg was part of the GDR until 1990.

And the Westphalian Evangelical Church ... certainly we here are hidden commies since centuries (Thälmann was a Westphalian and Engles was born just two miles outside).
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 09:59 am
Walter, of course who could be against Bambi? I think you need to see a little deeper into the basic politics of this issue than merely citing some of the people that want a clean environment. We all want that. The argument comes into what is reasonable and balanced and who is going to determine the approach and how. I am simply suggesting that people that favor communistic ideas and government control of commerce and severely dislike free enterprise are some of the biggest drivers of the green movement. This should be obvious to anyone observing politics here in America for the last few decades. I don't know about Germany, but I suspect the same principles apply there.

My experience comes from the energy business, and any and all energy businesses have been obstructed, sued, and opposed by environmental groups at every turn. One gets the clear message that unless government does something, they are adamantly opposed. So what conclusion can I draw but the obvious one that I have expressed?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:04 am
okie wrote:
Walter, of course who could be against Bambi? I think you need to see a little deeper into the basic politics of this issue than merely citing some of the people that want a clean environment.


I neither spoke about "Bambi" nor about "clean environment".

And looking deeper in basic politics? Well, it's some time ago since I've got my degree in political sciences, but I really don't think that I forgot all.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:07 am
Quote:
We all want that.


Wrongo. A lot of people don't give a damn.

They certainly don't want to see a hair of their profits or comforts reduced to see it so.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:13 am
okie wrote:
The argument comes into what is reasonable and balanced and who is going to determine the approach and how. I am simply suggesting that people that favor communistic ideas and government control of commerce and severely dislike free enterprise are some of the biggest drivers of the green movement.


What "communistic ideas" specifically?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:14 am
So is it the profits you don't like, cyclops, instead of the environmental damage? You are coming close to expressing the true agenda here. Some of the biggest environmentalists are Hollywood libs, and they are also the biggest wasters on the planet. So explain that to me, cyclops.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:17 am
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
The argument comes into what is reasonable and balanced and who is going to determine the approach and how. I am simply suggesting that people that favor communistic ideas and government control of commerce and severely dislike free enterprise are some of the biggest drivers of the green movement.


What "communistic ideas" specifically?


Do I have to spell it out? Are people too dense to figure this out? I guess so. One idea says government can do things better, safer, and more environmentally acceptable than greedy corporations that seek only profit and therefore do not care about the environment.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:20 am
okie wrote:
old europe wrote:
What "communistic ideas" specifically?


Do I have to spell it out? Are people too dense to figure this out? I guess so. One idea says government can do things better, safer, and more environmentally acceptable than greedy corporations that seek only profit and therefore do not care about the environment.


That's not a "communistic idea".
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:22 am
okie wrote:
So is it the profits you don't like, cyclops, instead of the environmental damage? You are coming close to expressing the true agenda here. Some of the biggest environmentalists are Hollywood libs, and they are also the biggest wasters on the planet. So explain that to me, cyclops.


It's because many of them are hypocrites. Same as many moralizers are hypocrites everywhere. It doesn't make environmentalism wrong.

I'm not against profits, Okie; people gotta make a living. But I am against the mentality that places profits above environmental safety, and that is one which is displayed by 95% of corporations in America.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:23 am
okie wrote:
Do I have to spell it out? Are people too dense to figure this out? I guess so. One idea says government can do things better, safer, and more environmentally acceptable than greedy corporations that seek only profit and therefore do not care about the environment.


Well, you certainly might be correct - at least, you are considering me, since I must be totally dense.

So you think, environmetal laws should be made privately and environmental agencies of course run by corporations.

Well, we have a totally different system here (democracy by its name) and our parliament is run by the same ideals.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 08:25:38