The ethical question no climate denier will answer

Ah yes. Another favorite of the agenda driven: out of context quotes. Out of context quotes don't impress me. The Schneider one has been addressed here in this forum numerous times

Statements without evidence don't impress me. One man's opinion based on conspiracies don't impress me. And even Moore criticizes "environmental extremists" which you've morphed into "environmentalists"; that's either dishonest of you or you've misunderstood Moore's message.

Like I stated in an earlier post, read some environmentalist literature and try addressing the concerns environmentalists have instead defining them by what you are told.
That's the problem with right wing "me, me, me" extremists. You don't understand that there is no such thing as a "lesser species". You don't understand the concept of interdependency. Extinction of "lesser species" will eventually lead to our own extinction.

 

Please indicate any quote that has been taken out of context please ? For instance In what context could a quote that ' human beings as a species have no more value than slugs' be taken ?

You've been shown a lot yet nothing seems to 'impress you' . Would you mind indicating what would impress you ?.

I'm sorry but I'm defining them by thier own statements not by what I'm being told about them

.

So anyone taking issue is a 'me, me, me' extremist ?

Of course there is. Thats your misunderstanding not mine

So following on from that line of reasoning you'd then agree with the statement that 'hunan beings as a species have no more value than slugs' then ? And you inferr I have an extemist view !

 

Most of them are out of context by definition because the surrounding context in which they were said is not supplied. There's no reference to the source documents to verify.

For example the one about slugs could have been in the context of pointing out that that species come and go in nature. Slugs and humans are two different species. Either one could go extinct and it wouldn't matter to the Earth. Therefore as far as nature is concerned both have equal value.

The first one: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.", the guy could have been complaining not advocating that! A fuller quote might have been:

"Unfortunately society is not conductive the truth. It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

These sort of quotes are red flags when they don't come with sources. If the quotes haven't been misleadingly mined then why haven't links to the original sources been added so we can check for ourselves? I googled the quotes and found lots of hits for them, but none of them provided a link to the original sources. That is kind of suspicious.

 

Sorry. I'm not playing the "chase the quote" game anymore.

What would impress me would be you acknowledging that you morphed Moore's "extreme environmentalists" into "environmentalists". What would impress me even more is if you would apologize for misleading us.
What would impress me would be an environmental web site that confirms your accusations. What would impress me even more would be the web site of a well known environmental organization that confirms your accusations.
What would impress me if you backed such claims that environmentalists are "Denying impoverished villages electrification" with actual evidence.

Can you define "lesser species"? Can you give 3 examples of "lesser species" and why they are "lesser"?
To the environment or the planet 'hunan (sic) beings as a species have no more value than slugs' .
We certainly consider ourselves to have more value than a slug; but then every species, if it could think, would consider itself as being the most important.
Context is important.

And, yes, our survival is important; but we will not survive if we destroy our environment.

 

I thought you might. So given that is the case we have to accept these quotes are actually valid.

I presented you with the facts using the former Greenpeace founder to do it for me . I have no need to mislead to make my point

Environmentalists will always try to claim they are not extremists . They are hardly going to admit that they are
.

Here is just one example . There are many more

http://www.thegwpf.org/green-madnes...an-villages-receiving-grid-based-electricity/

This article too spells out very well how green insanity is endangering us.

http://www.discovery.org/a/18641

We are the dominant species. Everything else is lesser

What nonsense

The problem is modern environmentalists demand we not be allowed to even touch the planet much less destroy it. I'm sorry but 7 billion of us are going to have an impact and need the resources of the planet to have any quality of life

 

Nonsense . The modern environmentalist argument goes like this

1. There isn’t enough of x to go around.
2. Therefore human numbers, activities, or liberties must be severely constrained.
3. Those of us enlightened by wisdom must be empowered to do the constraining.
4. And having obtained such power, let’s make the best of it and stick it to those we despise anyway.

The environmentalists would have us put a collective tourniquet around the economic throat of humanity in order to staunch some imagined future nosebleed and in my view are a far greater threat to the continued existence of most of us than anything mother nature might have in store

 

Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and Lies is all "skeptics" have left because reality is getting harder and harder to deny.

Quotes are valid; just taken out of context.

No, you used appeal to authority fallacy and presented us with an opinion, (you need to learn the difference between facts and opinion) which does not match your own.

There ya go again: Using your own definition of "environmentalist" to confirm your bias.

And let's read the original report by Centre for Science and Environment

and

Nothing in the report about denying electricity because of carbon emissions. Just another lie and spin from pseudo-scientific blogs.

Yeah, The Discovery Institute. That'll impress me!

Really! See how long we last without bacteria.

In other words, ya got nothin'

Once again defining "environmentalist" to confirm your bias.

 

So using your own words 'ya got nothin'

Given that 'opinion' is from the co founder of one of the worlds leading environmental agencies I had hoped it might carry some weight with you

What confirms my 'bias' are environmentalists own statements

What had this to do with carbon emissions ?

To date nothing will however well qualified it may be

Environmental extremism is perhaps the greatest threat to our future wellbeing for the many reasons I've outlined. I make no bones about standing against extremism in whatever form it manifests itself

 

That's your fantasy world. Here's the reality:
Environmental Groups

more groups and their policies at the link.

 

Ridicule, conspiracy theories, strawman arguments and Lies is all "skeptics" have left because reality is getting harder and harder to deny.

That's the point. Pseudoscience blogs are blaming environmentalists for objecting to electrifying villages because, according to the blogs, it produces carbon emissions. The article I linked to shows that to be a false.

 

In my experience thier actions speak louder than thier words. Tens of millions have already lost thier lives due to rampant environmentalism the banning of DDT being a good example with their demonizing of water chlorination being not far behind.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259

It is estimated that the ban on DDT alone has been responsible for at least as many preventable deaths over the last 30+ years as the entire casualties from WW2 ! How many of your organizations spoke out against this madness or were they too busy ensuring the welfare of rare slugs somewhere or other ?

More on the green demonization of chlorine

http://lobby.la.psu.edu/015_Disinfe...onal_Statements/C3/C3_The_End_of_Chlorine.htm

This too is causing thousands of preventable deaths daily

 

I wondered how long it would take to reference this bit of anti-environmental propaganda.
DDT was never banned worldwide for the purpose of vector control.

I'm not familiar with the banning of chlorine but as it so happens, I just bought a bottle of bleach yesterday. So I guess the alleged attempted ban on chlorine was unsuccessful.

 

So if those articles are wrong then environmentalists must be all for DDT and chlorine then given the beneficial effects they have for humans in the areas they are most required wont they ? Can you give me examples of thier campaigning for thier use in order to save human life ?

 

Topic: The ethical question no climate denier will answer ; not DDT
Go start another thread with a discussion of DDT as the topic. I don't have the time nor the inclination to discuss DDT again. If you want my views search "DDT" with username "Mannied".
And you ignored the part of my post of how the anti-environmentalists are lying about the reason for postponing getting electricity to the 1000+ villages.

 

OK lets forget about that then and talk about ethical questions as per the OP.

Can you cite me a single example in the last 25 years of where environmentalists groups have promoted any project that would directly benefit people in the third world. Lets say drilling freshwater standpipes for poor villages. Assistance with irrigation projects or livestock management GM crops. Or electrification. In short anything that would improve the quality of life and increase mortality for billions across the globe ,or have they actually stood against such projects ?


Ethics you say ? Dont make me laugh

 

Oh bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! Yeah and fully automatic machine guns aren't banned either. They are just have impossible to get licenses.

 

No, I cannot cite "a single example in the last 25 years of where environmentalists groups have promoted any project that would directly benefit people in the third world."; my knowledge of the history environmental movement is not that strong. However, I know and have known many, many environmentalists in my life and none, absolutely none, think the way you claim that they think.

So what did the countries that bought 35 million pounds of DDT after the ban do with it.
source

 

Really ? Well here is what many high profile ones do think about it probably explaining why no such proactive pro human projects have ever existed within the modern environmental movement. And please dont try and claim these quotes too are 'taken out of context' because its difficult for any reasoning individual to imagine what possible context exists could ever explain these sort of statements away as being benign

http://culturerev.com/2011/08/do-environmentalists-hate-us/

Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”
John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: “I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: “We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal.”
David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: “It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: “The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: “A total population of 250—300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”

 

Oh look I found something on the internet it has to be true. No need to check the source and see if the wiki I'm reading even interpreted the source correctly.

From your source.

Wow seems pretty rock solid there. The EPA says that the US continued to export approximately 35 million pounds after the 1972 ban.

Your source cites the EPA study.

So lets see if what you read on the internet is true.

The actual EPA study can be found here and this is what it says.
http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ddt-regulatory-history-brief-survey-1975

So 35 million in 1972. How did your wiki source interpret that as 35 million since the ban. Well we can easily see that your source is fubared. The survey was actually written in 1975 not 2008.

 

If you're really interested in a discussion of out of context quotes,you'll first have to provide the original source of the quote and prove that the quote is not just anti-environmental propaganda.
I'll start with the first one by Cousteau:

* = interviewer
-- = Cousteau response
As anyone with minimal reading comprehension skills understands, Cousteau was analyzing the problem of over-population, not condoning eliminating 350,000 people per day, as can be seen in the followup question:

That sure doesn't sound like Cousteau wanted to eliminate people. Cousteau's obvious solution is not eliminating 350,000 per day, but reducing population growth.

And in light of your statement,

what actions did Cousteau take eliminate 350,000 per day.

Your turn: Find me the original quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: “I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” and prove it was not made up by the anti-environmentalists extremists!

 

I, nor my link never used the word "since". Big difference in meaning between using the word "since" and the word "after", which is what I used.
I thought you'd know me well enough that you'd know that I wouldn't post any info without reading multiple sources.

PDF source from www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35-c5.pdf‎

So why were US companies still exporting DDT if, as you imply,no one was using it?

 

Oh I know you well enough. I know you well enough that you will resort to a ridiculous argument like 'after the ban' and 'since the ban' mean anything different.

You arr just trolling in hopes that I will flame you so you can go running to moderation.

Trolling 101 say something so monumentally ridiculous that the only response is to point how asinine such a comment is then go running to moderation.

Look at your own data Mannie in 72 the last year before the ban exports were 35 million pounds10 years later it dropped to 300k kilograms. 10 years after that there were 0. That is a ban Mannie you can try and hide behind word games mannie but you and those like you have been responsible for the worst genocide in history. Its tine you toon responsibility for all the people you let die.

 

Really!!?? That's how you interpret the answer to the second question. Dude, you either have comprehension problems or have become seriously brainwashed by the anti-environmentalists!
I already did. I linked to a list of environmental websites and you dismissed it with "In my experience thier (sic) actions speak louder than thier (sic)words."
First you use out of context quotes to confirm your bias. But then you dismiss the words of environmental websites because they don't confirm your bias. Along with comprehension problems, you also seem to have a problem in the use of logic

I've actually tried looking for Davis' quote. I thought I'd give you the chance to back your claim. Because you won't and I can't find the quote, I'll have to come to the conclusion that Davis never stated it; it was manufactured by some anti-environmentalist to further your agenda of the destruction of the environmental movement