Pardon! Was trying to read and a fly got on my monitor.
Posted on 05/04/2005 4:52:19 AM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail!
Good morning!!
Do not let the victims of the attacks on New York and Washington, nor the brave members of the Nation's military who have given their lives to protect our freedom, die in vain!!
Yesterday, we had quite the debate over global warming and whether it was real or not. At least in this forum, it can be said the antagonists of the theory won the day over the protagonist that tried to press his or her position.
Which brings us to a bigger question, what of environmentalism, and are conservatives inherently against it?
Well, that's sort of asking: "Do you like to breathe dirty air, drink dirty water, and walk through dirty landscapes?" Of course not, that's silly on its face.
Yet, that is the argument that is consistenty and vehemently postulated by the leftists in America--only THEY can protect the environment. Only THEY have the responsibility to protect the non-human species that wander the planet. If it were not for THEM, species other than humans would cease to exist.
Well, like yesterday's debater, it helps to come to the table with some facts.
Here's some dealing with the radical environmental movement.
Today, there is a story where windmills are being opposed in Wisconsin. Clean energy, right? Taking it from the wind, not burning fossil fuels? Taking a premium off of what nature sends around anyway? What can be wrong with that? Birds--the windmills will kill birds.
Global warming. That debate is less about science than about control, how to run everyone's lives. This becomes evident when you review some of the meetings. New science keeps emerging, and this is probably real science, that forces changes in the "theory" of global warming. But these people don't go "wait a minute, we need to study more to find out what's the best course of action," no, that's already been decided--control of the masses. The theory is revised, but in such a way that still requires draconian people control.
Recycling. A nice hot button here. But, guess what? There's been some information coming out lately that recycling is acutally more harmful than creating the product new in the first place. Seems the radical environmentalists forgot to factor in the transportation of the waste material to recycling places, the chemicals used in recycling, disposal of those chemicals, and so on and so on.
Car pooling, and mass transit in general. Sounds good, move large masses of people with trains and busses. One problem: what happens when that capacity fills up? THEIR answer: build more. All right, where? The problem is, mass transit allowed suburban areas to explode, and in the process pushed land values up like a rocket. Statistics have not been researched for this piece, but it would not be surprising if mass transit was the number one contributor to both suburban growth and property value increases generally. And those people have to be supplied. They are supplied by trucks. Trucks that now fill our Interstates, for which we have no more room to build for them because of the lack of foresight. Traffic is gridlocked with no solution--because the mass transit capacity is choked. Net result? Massive increases in air polution.
Enter the Clean Air Act. Now if there was ever a case in mass hypocracy, this is it. The left creates the urban smog soup from their failed efforts with car pools and mass transit, forgetting about the need to provide pavement (busses have to go somewhere you know) and rail (prohibitively expensive, you should know) in advance, and then they say "clean it up"! HOW? Our cars cannot move, the trucks are stalled on the highways belching soot, and we are told it is our fault.
Baloney. This country is straining under two decades of failed policy efforts on the part of the "green" movement. Our cities were, for a while, becoming "green", but are now, once again, moving to brown. Yet governments persist in the failed policies. The Commonwealth of Virginia, for example, has (finally!) authorized two more lanes for Highway 495. Sadly, they are to be "High Occupancy Toll" lanes. Have three or more souls, free, otherwise you get socked.
Having witnessed these lanes in both New York City and Georgia (although you don't have to pay a toll there), they are abject failures. No one is using critical concrete, and the allowable lanes are clogged with cars and trucks, continuing to contribute to the smog overhang. Georgia is more liberal than the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway--you only need two people. And yet, during my trip to Alanta I could observe they were essentially EMPTY during rush hour.
High Occupancy Vehicle programs have been pursued for almost three decades. Isn't it time to say "ENOUGH" and accept THEY ARE NOT WORKING!?
We need to find ways to get cars and trucks moving, and that means concrete. Will the areas around the new pavement grow, certainly. But isn't that how we manage to prosperity? Isn't staying stagnant a recipe for ultimate demise: "a man who stands still is bound to be run over."
Indeed, the procurment and placement of asphalt would lead to the environmentalist's mantra: the solution to polution is dilution. Spread it out. Move the cars and trucks, then the exhaust won't turn to brown soup.
But that leaves the question, is the right "right" on environmentalism? Well, we don't hate the environment. Indeed, we honor a quaint old idea: husbandry. Use what God provides, and make sure we leave it in a state where it is usable.
This can be leveraged. It has been shown that when a company is given exclusive rights to an area, they manage it well. Tree farms are cut appropriately because the paper company wants to stay in business. The fisheries that are given regions to work in the sea strive to protect fish to the extent it allows their business to flourish. These work, they should be pursued.
The problem is, it turns the locus of control to individuals, and that the radical environmental movement cannot allow for it forces them to concede both that they were wrong and their power they wield.
But like the birds in Wiconsin, we will fly around their windmills.
For AMERICA - The Right Way, I remain yours in the Cause, the Chairman.
More memorable in the long run than you will be.
And some of us here, at least one anyway, have been actively studying meteorology for the last 40 years and have an opinion or two or three on this, but since you feel free to exist in the comfort of the indefinite decision environment of it might be or it might not be, what I say based on my study is, of course, irrelevant.
BTW - I have this suspicion that I've been studying the atmosphere longer than you've been alive, so consider that in your analysis.
bev, Would you mind sharing that recipe with us? We have a taco lunch every birthday here and the bake sounds like a nice addition to our menu. HOB
Ouch. Heard that one way over here. LOL!
Wonder how long it will take his conference call with his buddies to come up with something to return with?
Discussion is great.. NAME CALLING IS NOT
Pardon! Was trying to read and a fly got on my monitor.
So you cite flawed data.
Cute.
If I cite flawed data, will that make my point valid?
China is a worse polluter than the US is.
There is a city in China that disappears from satellite view due to the amount of pollution induced haze over it.
China has some wonderful places that would be considered SUPERFUND SITES if they existed in the US.
Yet in China, people live on said sites.
Hmm..
And Russia.. *chuckle*
Russia built a canal by detonating nukes in a row.
They also have a nice little lake that I will invite you to swim in.
];-)
If you WERE stupid enough to get near it, you'd die.
It is dangerously toxic.
Geese landing on it die within seconds.
But hey, China isn't a polluter in the eyes of the Enviros..
And the flawed data you cited proves the adage that in the eyes of the enviros, there's no such thing as a bad communist country.
THANK YOU for illustrating the fact so clearly for everyone.
THANK YOU for showing that I am right about yor defense of China.
He's an envirowacky who believes the Kyoto treaty is great.
He holds no values held by any conservative ideal.
Basically, he's here to troll.
"OK, I will. PS: you're saying that you're senile, right?"
Oh, but you'll trust '1000 scientists' who back YOU up over 15000 who do not, and never once consider that many of the 1000 who back you up just MIGHT be senile?
And you want to speak about who is in touch with reality?
You're showing that it is NOT you.
..............................................................knockoutoption
I pulled that straight from your post guy.
Mountain Laurel looks a bit like Rhodaeendrun (sp). It is beautiful and quite abundant in the mountains of Pennsylvania!
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.