Eco Warriors

[Guest Drew P Pissflaps]

52 minutes ago, Quincy Cockfingers said:

The first person to use the pseudonym b stickers was a woman, I think. He's half way there. Good, but it's not right.

You mean Professor B Stickers?

[Guest Tata Steely Dan]

On 9/27/2016 at 9:10 AM, Snatch said:

Do you know about it?

I know more than the weirdos that hang out on the Gaia pages of the Guido Fawkes webpage, apparently.

The link between holding right-wing views and being opposed to the concept of climate change generally, and anthropogenic climate change specifically, is an interesting one. I would have thought social conservatives would leap at the chance to champion something that reduces people's movement (emissions cuts, higher fuel costs etc) and which could be used to promote eugenics-based population control and even active depopulation. The only time I've seen this embraced is when right wing commentators note that increased environmental impact through mass migration to the UK is somehow 'the elephant in the room'. This is the only time they champion a thought process they otherwise ridicule. The rest of the time they somewhat tiresomely insist that climate change is a myth, we're just heading out of a mini ice-age, it is all a conspiracy by the left to invent bogus taxation, etc etc ad nauseum. They have one or two scientists (from completely unrelated fields) who are uncertain about climate change, or they have one or two token graphs, ripped out of context, that they think shows something they actually don't. 

This rejection of climate change might arise because the green movement is, in some parts, synonymous with other left wing causes such as feminism, LGBTQ causes or even the idea that white heterosexual males are somewhat over-represented within the STEM disciplines. Case in point, the manifesto of the Green party right here in the UK. In Germany the green movement is synonymous with the anti-nuclear movement, with both tracing their roots back to early anarcho and deep-ecological movements. Perhaps it is this 'coming in out of the cold', or the transition from hippy fringe to mainstream science and thought, that leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouths of the politically right of center? 

Eco-warriors trouble me, as they are clearly in it as some sort of vanity project, with a mentality that is pretty much the same as that of religious fanatics. I've encountered deep ecologists who don't think you should ever turn over a stone or, even worse, take a stone home if you find it in the wild. They would love to build fences to keep humans away from various species and habitats, and think that preserving the least noteworthy and most fragmented habitats (which may be found in gross abundance on mainland Europe) is somehow a worthy cause; institutionalised misanthropy, for want of a better phrase. Wind eco-warriors up by asking them if they aren't just simply building a zoo.

[Guest luke swarm]

13 minutes ago, Tata Steely Dan said:

I know more than the weirdos that hang out on the Gaia pages of the Guido Fawkes webpage, apparently.

The link between holding right-wing views and being opposed to the concept of climate change generally, and anthropogenic climate change specifically, is an interesting one. I would have thought social conservatives would leap at the chance to champion something that reduces people's movement (emissions cuts, higher fuel costs etc) and which could be used to promote eugenics-based population control and even active depopulation. The only time I've seen this embraced is when right wing commentators note that increased environmental impact through mass migration to the UK is somehow 'the elephant in the room'. This is the only time they champion a thought process they otherwise ridicule. The rest of the time they somewhat tiresomely insist that climate change is a myth, we're just heading out of a mini ice-age, it is all a conspiracy by the left to invent bogus taxation, etc etc ad nauseum. They have one or two scientists (from completely unrelated fields) who are uncertain about climate change, or they have one or two token graphs, ripped out of context, that they think shows something they actually don't. 

This rejection of climate change might arise because the green movement is, in some parts, synonymous with other left wing causes such as feminism, LGBTQ causes or even the idea that white heterosexual males are somewhat over-represented within the STEM disciplines. Case in point, the manifesto of the Green party right here in the UK. In Germany the green movement is synonymous with the anti-nuclear movement, with both tracing their roots back to early anarcho and deep-ecological movements. Perhaps it is this 'coming in out of the cold', or the transition from hippy fringe to mainstream science and thought, that leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouths of the politically right of center? 

Eco-warriors trouble me, as they are clearly in it as some sort of vanity project, with a mentality that is pretty much the same as that of religious fanatics. I've encountered deep ecologists who don't think you should ever turn over a stone or, even worse, take a stone home if you find it in the wild. They would love to build fences to keep humans away from various species and habitats, and think that preserving the least noteworthy and most fragmented habitats (which may be found in gross abundance on mainland Europe) is somehow a worthy cause; institutionalised misanthropy, for want of a better phrase. Wind eco-warriors up by asking them if they aren't just simply building a zoo.

so in a nutshell, you are saying that you have a lot of time on your hands.

[Guest Tata Steely Dan]

1 minute ago, luke swarm said:

so in a nutshell, you are saying that you have a lot of time on your hands.

I have to do something while monitoring the mating habits of Punkape's rectal snails. I'm hoping to start a captive breeding program some time in the next few months once I've collected enough specimens. 

[Guest DingTheRioja]

1 hour ago, deebom said:

So what about the hole in the ozone layer?

 

You mean that hole which isn't a hole, merely a possible "thinning" ?

The one which can never repair itself from the havoc CFCs have wreaked from us mere plebs not wanting to stink like old stilton?

The one that is on course for full reparation within the next 25 years max?

 

 

Fuck all wrong with it really. Funny how the eco-cunts don't bother to mention it.

[Guest Quincy Cockfingers]

32 minutes ago, Tata Steely Dan said:

I know more than the weirdos that hang out on the Gaia pages of the Guido Fawkes webpage, apparently.

The link between holding right-wing views and being opposed to the concept of climate change generally, and anthropogenic climate change specifically, is an interesting one. I would have thought social conservatives would leap at the chance to champion something that reduces people's movement (emissions cuts, higher fuel costs etc) and which could be used to promote eugenics-based population control and even active depopulation. The only time I've seen this embraced is when right wing commentators note that increased environmental impact through mass migration to the UK is somehow 'the elephant in the room'. This is the only time they champion a thought process they otherwise ridicule. The rest of the time they somewhat tiresomely insist that climate change is a myth, we're just heading out of a mini ice-age, it is all a conspiracy by the left to invent bogus taxation, etc etc ad nauseum. They have one or two scientists (from completely unrelated fields) who are uncertain about climate change, or they have one or two token graphs, ripped out of context, that they think shows something they actually don't. 

This rejection of climate change might arise because the green movement is, in some parts, synonymous with other left wing causes such as feminism, LGBTQ causes or even the idea that white heterosexual males are somewhat over-represented within the STEM disciplines. Case in point, the manifesto of the Green party right here in the UK. In Germany the green movement is synonymous with the anti-nuclear movement, with both tracing their roots back to early anarcho and deep-ecological movements. Perhaps it is this 'coming in out of the cold', or the transition from hippy fringe to mainstream science and thought, that leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouths of the politically right of center? 

Eco-warriors trouble me, as they are clearly in it as some sort of vanity project, with a mentality that is pretty much the same as that of religious fanatics. I've encountered deep ecologists who don't think you should ever turn over a stone or, even worse, take a stone home if you find it in the wild. They would love to build fences to keep humans away from various species and habitats, and think that preserving the least noteworthy and most fragmented habitats (which may be found in gross abundance on mainland Europe) is somehow a worthy cause; institutionalised misanthropy, for want of a better phrase. Wind eco-warriors up by asking them if they aren't just simply building a zoo.

Nice and snappy. 

[Mrs Roops]

3 hours ago, deebom said:

So what about the hole in the ozone layer?

Well the good news is that the size of the ozone hole seems to be reducing, mainly due to governments getting their act together in banning CFC's.

Read all about it here.

[Guest Snatch]

9 hours ago, Tata Steely Dan said:

I know more than the weirdos that hang out on the Gaia pages of the Guido Fawkes webpage, apparently.

The link between holding right-wing views and being opposed to the concept of climate change generally, and anthropogenic climate change specifically, is an interesting one. I would have thought social conservatives would leap at the chance to champion something that reduces people's movement (emissions cuts, higher fuel costs etc) and which could be used to promote eugenics-based population control and even active depopulation. The only time I've seen this embraced is when right wing commentators note that increased environmental impact through mass migration to the UK is somehow 'the elephant in the room'. This is the only time they champion a thought process they otherwise ridicule. The rest of the time they somewhat tiresomely insist that climate change is a myth, we're just heading out of a mini ice-age, it is all a conspiracy by the left to invent bogus taxation, etc etc ad nauseum. They have one or two scientists (from completely unrelated fields) who are uncertain about climate change, or they have one or two token graphs, ripped out of context, that they think shows something they actually don't. 

This rejection of climate change might arise because the green movement is, in some parts, synonymous with other left wing causes such as feminism, LGBTQ causes or even the idea that white heterosexual males are somewhat over-represented within the STEM disciplines. Case in point, the manifesto of the Green party right here in the UK. In Germany the green movement is synonymous with the anti-nuclear movement, with both tracing their roots back to early anarcho and deep-ecological movements. Perhaps it is this 'coming in out of the cold', or the transition from hippy fringe to mainstream science and thought, that leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouths of the politically right of center? 

Eco-warriors trouble me, as they are clearly in it as some sort of vanity project, with a mentality that is pretty much the same as that of religious fanatics. I've encountered deep ecologists who don't think you should ever turn over a stone or, even worse, take a stone home if you find it in the wild. They would love to build fences to keep humans away from various species and habitats, and think that preserving the least noteworthy and most fragmented habitats (which may be found in gross abundance on mainland Europe) is somehow a worthy cause; institutionalised misanthropy, for want of a better phrase. Wind eco-warriors up by asking them if they aren't just simply building a zoo.

So what your saying is eco warriors are cunts?

[Witheredscrote]

11 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

Well the good news is that the size of the ozone hole seems to be reducing, mainly due to governments getting their act together in banning CFC's.

Read all about it here.

I bet there is another hole that isn't.