After a long morning of yard and house work, I decided to treat myself to lunch. Adjacent from the booth I was sitting in was a group of four elderly people. Every now and again I would catch bits an pieces of their conversation; diet, keeping active, etc. Normal innocent conversation.

As I finished my meal, and was on my way out, I heard one of the women utter these 'pearls of wisdom'. The topic of conversation had turned to the oil spill in the gulf. One of the men commented that they didn't know what caused it yet. That's when she said "It was probably sabotage. I bet it was those damn environmentalists. Trying to scare us into going green."... Not wanting to cause a scene in the middle of the restaurant, I simply shook my head in dismay and went on my way.

But talk about being horribly illogical! Being an environmentalist means safeguarding and protecting the environment. It's something they love and respect. So how is it logical that an environmentalist would say "We need to get people off oil. Any Ideas? Oh, I know! Lets cause untold ecological destruction! There's no better way to save the environment, than to destroy it."... That's like someone asserting that they are a New England Patriots fan, but also putting a hit on Tom Brady. They are incompatible statements that defy the other.

My only guess is that they are climate change deniers. Thusly, anything associated with 'going green' is bad and wrong. But why can't some separate global warming from 'going green'. OK, so say you're a warming skeptic. Is it wise to blindly dismiss 'going green' as well? Surely the idea of being ecologically responsible transcends warming and enters to all applicable fields of thought. Even if there was no warming, we still ultimately depend on the environment for our well being. Safegaurding nature benifits nature, and in the long run, us as well. If we carelessly destroy our ecosystem, it will tear us down with it.

But it makes me wonder how people can be so apathetic toward nature and lay waste to it so easily and carelessly. Part of my thinking reminded me of statements that were made when I was in CCD school. What's a flower for? To give us something pretty to look at and to smell good. Why are trees green? Because green is the most pleasing color to our eye for them to be. Why do birds sing? To give us a pretty song to hear. Etc, etc, etc. All baloney, and terribly selfish 'reasons'. We were taught that the 'whole of creation' was made expressly for us humans. It is ours to do with as we please. I feel that this helps lead to the horrible destruction we've seen throughout time. Thinking that we are above nature and it is our possession. It's only when one realizes that we are also part of nature and are simple spectators that you can grasp the true majesty and the horrible consequences of our actions. We all connected and mutually reliant of the welfare of the worldwide ecosystem. The lumberjack, the mighty larch, parrot, herring fish, duck, rabbit, or something completely different. We rely on each other in one way or another. Most times not directly. But feeling we are outside of nature and in control is a dangerous stance. If we shit all over the environment with no regard, we will ultimately recieve the same.

Views: 60

Comment by Chetan D on May 2, 2010 at 9:53pm

them damned environmentalists- going on by on mid to below average salary, tryna blow up oil tankers to gain attention, wasting all their lives out of sheer desire to protect everyone else's ass...damned environmentalists!

what would jesus do, you should have asked?
Comment by Shine on May 2, 2010 at 10:14pm
Wow. Environmentalists blowing up the rig definitely has to be the dumbest conspiracy theory that I've heard yet. Although it's rivaled by a story I was reading involving a Kremlin report that North Korea apparently torpedoed the rig.
Comment by Reggie on May 3, 2010 at 12:37am
I was stuck listening to four elderly ladies in an Italian restaurant harangue on about Barack Obama and politics. It was excruciating and I wanted to scream at them and their simple, vacuous opinions on complicated and nuanced matters. Instead, I tried my best to ignore them and bitterly ate my pasta.
Comment by Renshia on May 3, 2010 at 1:16am
"so say you're a warming skeptic. Is it wise to blindly dismiss 'going green' as well?"

Okay It is hard to not get into this without a qualifier to my thoughts on the global climate hysteria. But I won't.

Even tho I have my doubts about for mentioned hysteria, I am also on the edge of fanaticism when it comes to looking after my planet. I could list a dozen ways recently where I have taken actions to be a good steward to my planet.
Just because I don't buy into the mass hysteria that has been created in no way means I do not recognize the need to look after the planet.
So I guess I saying were not all hell bent on testing the theory by completely trying to fuck up the planet. Some of us care, some of us care a lot. Just because some old bags are griping in a coffee shop does not mean that all " warming skeptics" don't give a shit.
Comment by Nature Identical on May 3, 2010 at 8:38am
I feel that the issue of global warming has been incorrectly presented to the public. It's teeming with misinformation, pseudo-science & as Renshia rightfully put it, hysteria.

I do agree that this is probably the most serious problem facing us as a species today. What troubles me is that the media & the green organizations are taking advantage of the lack of knowledge & education in many parts of the developing world. They don't offer economical ways in which poorer countries could also partake in the mammoth task of dealing with pollution & combating global warming. They offer expensive & impractical methods, such as solar power, to some of the most poverty-stricken regions in the world.

I saw an interesting documentary called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Although I don't blindly accept all the points raised in this documentary, I must admit that it was evident that something strange is going on. Some of the top climate experts had to go through lengthy legal proceedings after the Organization of Climate Change put their names next to some bogus climate claims.

According to some of the scientists, there have been much warmer periods on this planet. Another claim was that carbon dioxide increases drastically in accordance with solar activity. I would enjoy reading some of your views on this.

I agree that the human race MUST start dealing with pollution. The way in which we grow food, treat water resources & the manner in which we engage in economic activities don't seem sustainable.
I disagree with 'green' decisions being made at the expense of developing countries. Green activists, especially in developing countries, should spend less time rioting & more time coming up with ideas concerning:
1. Alternative, economical & cleaner fuels that the poor can use for basic heat & cooking purposes
2. Ways to involve the unemployed in viable recycling projects
3. Education without misinformation on how people can become actively involved
4. Harnessing alternative sources of power to decrease the use of coal. But, when looking at a country like South Africa (which is a major producer of coal), how would that impact its already deficient economy??

Some excellent work is being done by certain people. A respected university in South Africa is pioneering research on harnessing wave energy for hydrological power. This project is aimed at providing cheap & clean energy to some of the poorest areas in this particular region. Regular seminars are hosted & are open to the public. Information shared at these seminars is clear, unambiguous & easily understood by Joe Public.

Perhaps those old ladies have seen or read how some of the green activists behave? Rioting doesn't solve problems. Researched ideas (free from fear) make a more valuable contribution. Involving the lower economic groups in programmes instead of ignoring their needs could be a very powerful advancement tool in the warming issue.
Comment by Reggie on May 3, 2010 at 9:38am
'The Great Global Warming Swindle'? I'm pretty sure that has been shown to have as much validity as 'Zeitgeist'.

As far as the "hysteria", I'm not sure where you people are getting your information from. Perhaps from news sources that count on hysteria and sensationalism to sell paper or boost ratings? There is no hysteria where the science is concerned, and the science is rather clear, if you can understand it. The problem is we have a country littered with scientific illiterates and this is not a subject that even the literate ones can grasp very easily. Couple that with a campaign of woo-pushers, businesses and people with a vested interest against action, and a general distrust of authority and government, and you get this grand confusion at the Joe Public level where they believe the science is being muddied by corrupt and/or deluded scientists, driven by some governmental conspiracy.

Are their businesses and people trying to capitalize on Climate Change? Of course! Does this change the fact that Global Warming is happening and it is greatly caused by humans? No! How could it?
Comment by Shine on May 3, 2010 at 9:57am
'The Great Global Warming Swindle'? I'm pretty sure that has been shown to have as much validity as 'Zeitgeist'.

Yup. There is a great YouTube series about climate change by a science reporter that pretty much demolishes it. I can't access YouTube right now, but I'll link it later. And to be fair, the guy is pretty critical of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, as well.
Comment by Nature Identical on May 3, 2010 at 11:17am
Much of the documentary certainly smacks of conspiracy theory :-)
The only points which I considered more closely were based on economic viability & claims which were published in a document on climate change, with the names of some scientists listed as contributors when they were in fact not. The disregard for developing countries was also evident at the Copenhagen talks. Did anything change in your countries after those talks? I'm sure most of the African leaders were there for sight-seeing & shopping. I remember seeing the SA president on television in Copenhagen & the message was that Africa's development would suffer. Telling millions of poor people that there will be less development & that they must stop burning wood for heat is one task I wouldn't want to undertake for any amount of money in the world. Some of the ideas to combat climate change certainly have potential. It is however difficult to promote in a country where some of the hospitals don't even have running water, schools don't have bathroom facilities & several millions of citizens live in informal settlements without any electricity.

Shine, looking forward to the YouTube links :-)
Comment by Reggie on May 3, 2010 at 12:46pm
@ Neal - LMAO! Point taken, old man. ;-) But in defense of James, he didn't appear (to me, at least) to be coloring all of his elders with the same brush, merely these particular people he came across.

@ Adriana - Exactly! But I have to wonder how many meals I have ruined when I have opined in public on matters of politics? I'm sure at some point, someone silently thought me a dipshit as they angrily slurped their soup. Although, I try not to let such conversation, when they arise, carry over to surrounding tables.
Comment by Shine on May 3, 2010 at 7:27pm
Oops, I totally forgot about posting that YouTube series on climate change. Here is the episode (#4) that covers both An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle:

All six episodes of the series are really good. Here are links:

1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate
2. Climate Change -- the objections
3. Climate Change -- Anatomy of a myth
4. (embedded above)
5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?
6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service