Sorry but there is no scientific basis for that comment, many environmental issues are based on poor grasp of science in general. Global warming for instance, at the moment we are on the cusp of a next ice age global temperatures are actually lowering not rising. There is no scientific case for global warming, ice flows and glaciers are thickening in Greenland and Antarctica. the exception being the antarctic peninsula which has always seasonally calved icebergs. The average temperatures in most cities has not shown a uniform rise this implies that global weather patters are very much local not a global system. Some cities show large temperature increases since records began others show decrease in temperature. The main key indicator that global warming is occurring would be the sea levels, and those are static since records began showing flat not increasing trends.
Most environmental lobby groups take portions from respected scientific research and once out of context twist the meaning intent and conclusions of the scientist that published the original white paper.
I agree with the author of this thread they are a group that has a large stake commercially in their agenda. They protect billions of dollars of research grants and sponsorships and donations. They are compromised and not to be trusted in my opinion
You're a microbiologist. Are you telling me that you'd like to live in a place where the drinking water is polluted with human waste? You certainly are familiar with cholera and dysentery. Would you want your children to live in a city where the air quality is so poor that children, the elderly, and the infirm can't venture outdoors? You deny any connection between pure air, water and food and human health?
I don't believe in global warming. I believe there are cycles in the earth's weather, perhaps controlled by solar activity, that make some periods warmer than others. I do not deny that there is a lot of bad environmental science out there. But that only means we need to differentiate between the bad and the good, not get rid of all efforts to protect the environment.
I live in Florida, where the water table is only feet below us. I've seen beautiful lakes die in a matter of years because of improper treatment of runoff. As the state's population has grown, the state's natural resources have deteriorated. Does that mean we halt population growth in Florida? Absolutely not! I believe that wise growth is possible and necessary. Wise use of our resources is imperative.
The Dust Bowl in Oklahoma is another good example of how a terrible drought combined with poorly managed use of resources resulting in environmental catastrophe which caused massive human suffering. Does that mean farming was evil? Absolutely not! But wise soil conservation techniques have helped protect the land since then.
Do you know the history of Yellowstone national park? Husbanding the environment caused more damage than good. They destroyed the habitat until the realized they needed to burn portions of the woodland in order that the environment could sustain itself and create new growth. They prevented beavers building dams and flooding tracts until they realized this was also bad for the environment and a necessary attrition mechanism.
Have there ever been misguided attempts in which "protecting" the environment was actually harmful? No question. But as population grows, especially in population-dense areas, population puts a strain on the resources. We need wise practices to manage and protect these resources so that they will be around for future generations. Teddy Roosevelt said it better than I ever could:
Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us. I ask nothing of the nation except that it so behave as each farmer here behaves with reference to his own children. That farmer is a poor creature who skins the land and leaves it worthless to his children. The farmer is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself and to provide for the education of his children leaves it to them a little better than he found it himself. I believe the same thing of a nation.
BINGO! PETA is a great one for playing on people's ignorance of animals and animal behavior to get their agendas across.
I agree with the author of this thread they are a group that has a large stake commercially in their agenda. They protect billions of dollars of research grants and sponsorships and donations. They are compromised and not to be trusted in my opinion
You have hit the nail on the head.
OB