Posted on 04/17/2006 6:32:35 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
THE MOST contentious recent battle between creationists and evolutionary biologists is not the debate about the newly discovered ''missing link" between fish and land animals. Rather, it is a bizarre incident that involves predictions of doomsday and charges of encouraging terrorism. At bottom, this conflict is not about religion versus science but about the clash of two religions. It started early in March when Eric Pianka, an ecologist at the University of Texas who was named Texas Distinguished Scientist of 2006, gave a speech at a meeting of the Texas Academy of Sciences, filled with dire warnings about the fate of humanity and the earth. About a month later, Forrest M. Mims III, chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, posted an article about the event in a Web magazine called The Citizen Scientist. He asserted that Pianka advocated the death of more than 5 billion people from a virus for the cause of saving the planet -- to enthusiastic applause from the audience.
......Snip.......
Most Americans are environmentalists in the sense that they like clean air, clean water, and the preservation of wilderness areas. But for many, environmentalism has become a secular religion with its own fanatics. Some speak of nature's wrath in transparently religious terms.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Yeah, but this doesn't include cheerleading for a planetary ebola epeidemic or, as AL Gore once did, equivocating our lack of stronger environmental laws to The Christalnacht in 1930's Germany.
Have they been to a wilderness area lately and observed the condition of the forests? It's not so hot. Land needs care and maintenance or it is vastly less productive, even as a reserve for wild animals and plants.
I'm more concerned that environmentalism is going to CAUSE an environmental apocalypse. The Wildlands Project is building a system of corridors through whch pestilence can pass unimpeded.
Very true. Our current wild fire woes are paerhaps Mother nature's way of getting rid of debris and trash that we should have gone in and picked up. The increase in wiild fires certainly corresponded with our ban on harvesting fallen timber.
I've always thought that a death-wish for millions of people was lurking just beneath the surface of the environmental movement. It seems implicit in a lot of what environmentalists say. And I think their scare tactics are intended to pave the way for such an outcome, to gradually make the unthinkable not only thinkable but do-able.
The reasonable thing to do would be to convert that excess fuel into energy. The reason you won't hear about it is that the environmental move-mint is principally funded by tax-exempt "charitable" foundations of investors with serious oil and gas interests: Pew, Rockefeller, the British Royals, W. Alton Jones, etc.
California has the most overstocked forests in its history and biomass plants can't get the chips they need to run at capacity.
"And, I actually think the world will be much better when there's only 10 or 20 percent of us left."
Notice the word "us". The author assumes he'll be one of the survivors. This is no better than saying "let's get rid of some of the riff-raff around here".
What, you don't trust BP when they say their initials stand for Beyond Petroleum?
I really don't think the people beneath the board level within these companies have much understanding of what is going on. It's their major stockholders that are the problem.
Environmental Extremism Eventually Endangers Everyone
"Notice the word "us". The author assumes he'll be one of the survivors. This is no better than saying "let's get rid of some of the riff-raff around here".
They believe they and their friends will be left to carouse in a newly re-born Eden.
Ping.
Methinks they already are, else nobody would have loaned us the money.
when we need lots of troops, we can use all the 'crats now occupied with state/Federal lands. And we can also draft the excess regulation agency employees as we close down their agencies.
Good thought. They've already got body armor.
Nice, but no cigar.
"Good thought. They've already got body armor."
Yeppers on that one. If not taxpayer funded conventional body armor, they are often carrying an abdominal fat shield directly attributable to far too much time on their hands while on the taxpayer's clock and too much time exercising their hyperactive fork syndrome at the agency cafe.
And, let's not forget the savings we can realize by not having to by helmets for them. Given that in the case of 'crats, the head is not a vital organ, and given that they are walking, talking examples of bonehead syndrome, helmets would be superfluous.
;-)
Nonsense. If I am talking to three of my friends and I say that one of us will win the lottery, does that mean that I am the only one eligible?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.