The Environmentalists Are Wrong

The New York Times ^ | 08/26/2002 | BJORN LOMBORG

[Hunble]

Thanks Bagels_and_Cheese, I was following this thread this morning and lost track of it.

Now you have made many statements today, can you cite scientific data to validate your opinions?

[Hunble]

For years, I was a very strong advocate for the position that you hold. I personally produced films documenting the disgusting polution around Atlanta.

One day, I woke up and realized that everything I was doing was a lie! Oh sure, I could film a waterfall foaming with soap suds (Phosphate polution was the "in" thing at the time), but 5 feet away, there was a thriving community of minnows.

The harder I worked to document this horrible polution, the more I realized that we were lying to the public.

Think I am joking? Here is your personal challenge:

1) Post images around your own personal home which depict examples of polution.

2) Show us an image 180 degrees away from this source of polution.

I already know the answer - that 180 degree image will show a thriving community of life.

[M. Thatcher]

people be destroyin da planet

Not.

[Hunble]

Hey, I am old enought to remember when police officers carried bottles of Oxyzen in Los Angeles, because of the polution.

When I was fighting for the environment, we had a serious problem.

With your logic, all of our efforts since 1960 have been in vain. And if our efforts have not improved the environment, why are we still wasting our money on these programs?

I worked hard to help our environment over these years. I tend to get rather upset when people like you tell me that everything I did was useless!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Did h*!! freeze over?? I thought I saw that this article was in the NY Times.

[Hunble]

but this planet has LIMITED resources and we are depleting them fast. <-- a fact.

ABSOLUTLY FALSE!

My profession is working with Satellites and aerial photography. My major challenge is identifying how humans have altered our landscape.

Sure, if I examended your house with a magnifying lens, I could comment about your horrible abilities as a home owner to keep it clear. But in reality, you could be the cleanest person I know, and my error is a failure to keep things in perspective.

This is an issue of scale and when you view the Earth like I do from Satellites, you realize how difficult it is to even detect us humans. Seriously, you have to work hard to even detect us!

People like you have no concept of how powerful Mother Nature is. If humans are so dang powerful, why can we not prevent the next huricane or tornado?

Have you ever visited Mount St. Hellens? In just a few minutes, Mother Nature did more damage to that local environment that humans could ever dream of.

I use that example because I made a point of exploring how rapidly Nature was able to recover from a disaster such as this.

[PRO 1]

You know if you weren't such an ignorant stooge I would actually take the time to argue the stupid comments you made.

[Hunble]

Sorry about the spelling. When I am passionate about an issue, I tend to write what I am thinking at the moment, and notice the spelling errors later.

Oh well....

[rogue yam]

Hey B&C -

You said (in part): "...instead of teaching them to grow their own food..."

Africa is supposedly the "cradle of civilization."
Folks have been living there for thousands of years.
Why do they need to be taught how to grow their own food?

[Hunble]

Africa is supposedly the "cradle of civilization." Folks have been living there for thousands of years. Why do they need to be taught how to grow their own food?

That is a profound statement with many levels.

[Hunble]

italians gone

[Publius6961]

I would choose the environment 150 years ago any day over the crap we have now.

I understand that central Africa and/or Afghanistan qualify...

If you are serious I am equally serious about chipping in for your airfare (or airdrop).

[jenny65]

Upon which universe and/or planet are you living? We have more trees in the U.S. right now than we did 75 years ago.

DennisR, I'm with you on everything but this statement, or "Rushism", as I call it (gotta love the guy). While it may technically be true there are more trees now, that's because that statistic includes estimates of all the small-growth trees that are clogging our forests right now. The same ones providing fuel to the fires that have everyone's attention these days. Forest area (a much better indicator) has declined in the past century.

After all, their bread and butter is controversy, and they will do just about anything to create it and/or foster it.

So will Rush Limbaugh. (as she cringes before hitting the Post button).

[Hunble]

While it may technically be true there are more trees now, that's because that statistic includes estimates of all the small-growth trees that are clogging our forests right now.

Uh, not to call you a liar, but I hope you can back this one up!

100 years ago....

[Hunble]

I honestly do not want to rub your nose in it.

Have you ever seen photos taken 100 years ago? When America decided to build the railroads across this country, forests were devistated to supply the wood required.

It is because of good management of our resources during the last 100 years that we have not only restored our forests, but increased them beyond thier original boundaries.

Nice try....