Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.

I once alleged that the environmental movement considered the human species to be a "cancer on the earth".  I was called out for that statement, yet I did not back down.  While, it was fully my opinion, it was based on observed actions, words and deeds of the environmental movement.  Turns out, I was wrong.  it was not my opinion, it is a fact.  Indeed, it is Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, that has so dubbed man, not only the "AIDS"  (equating man to a virus), but a cancer as well.

“Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach,”

As you see, from his words, came my opinion - although at the time I had not read the man.  The debate on Anthropogenic Global Warming Global Climate Change Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Global Climate Disruption is not about any effect man may or may not have on the changing climate.  No, the proponents have already decided to get rid of man and turn the earth into a garden of Eden.  All ills of the planet are man's fault, and all cures are the eradication of Man.  They want to deprive you of energy (it produces CO2), food (animals produce methane), shelter (they retain heat and use energy), transportation, and clothing (again, it produces both CO2 and methane).  So in effect, they seek to remove all means of man's means of sustaining life.  They are not "anti-poor" as some think (since their policies would tax them out of existence), but simply anti-people.

The irony is that there are so many sheep walking about calling for their own demise - who are just not smart enough to realize they can help their masters with their own death.  For the end means they will be euthanized as well.  Yes, the climate changes, but as yet, no one has even provided any proof it is due to man (as the climate has been changing since the earth was formed).  Man makes his environment more conducive to his progeny, but the Climate Alarmist would have us undo this and simply eradicate man to fix something that has yet to be shown to be a problem.  You cannot throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, but it appears you sure can get man to march off cliffs like lemmings.


Comments (Page 1)
on Jul 20, 2011

I have to agree with some that man is an awful steward of the earth. I am not really on the global warming issue but over fishing and polluting the oceans, deforestation and mismanaging eco systems, capitalisms constant reductions in the quality of goods to keep the machine running and filling landfills more and more. 

Corruption and greed will turn the earth into one big land fill with tiny pockets of green zones for the elite. There is room for all of us if we can learn to manage our resources around good for the planet rather than good for the few. Fresh water will soon be the new precious commodity which wars will be fought over.

Check out Bill Gates quote on using vaccines to depopulate the earth. 

Bill Gates Wants Depopulation Through Vaccines and Health Care
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723

on Jul 20, 2011

myfist0
Corruption and greed will turn the earth into one big land fill with tiny pockets of green zones for the elite.

If allowed to run unchecked, probably.  However, that is not the case.  Love Canal burned in 1970. It is drinkable now.  But there has to be a balance (or if you go with Watson, I guess not - just kill all the people).  You cannot decide to push society back to the stone age - that defeats the purpose (when an old man was 30, and infant mortality was measured in double digits, not fractions).

That being said, Bill gates is sure going about his views funny.  He gave billions to extend the life of people.  Why?  If he wants to get rid of them.  But that is because he does only one thing well - marketing.  Microsoft "invented" one thing.  GW Basic.  Everything else it bought.  So if I want to sell my software, I go to Bill Gates.  If I want answers to questions, I go somewhere else.

And if I want a better world for my children, I do not go to Mr. Eugenics for help.  The funny thing about most people is they want to live, and calling them a cancer is not going to get their support.

on Jul 20, 2011

myfist0
I have to agree with some that man is an awful steward of the earth.

Are you aware that whales and dolphin now routinely swim in New York Harbor?

on Jul 21, 2011

Daiwa
Are you aware that whales and dolphin now routinely swim in New York Harbor?

Don't blame the whales and Dolphins - they are unaware of the residents of land.

on Jul 21, 2011

Phooey.  I believe in the Bible...Earth was created for man, not the other way around...there is sufficient in the earth for man...we (man) could go hog wild and detune every car and run them in too low a gear and smoke up every major city in the world and the earth would survive it.  All those cars would not dump as much pollutants into the air as one volcano in Iceland did in a day...and it got cleaned up...Mt Saint Helens left ash all across the USA and it got cleaned up...nature dumps more oil into the Gulf of Mexico than BP did...which, by the way, is really hard to find nowdays (the oil, not BP)...and the beat goes on...man has always had an inflated view of his own importance...cancer?...AIDS?...more like a pimple on the Earth's butt.

on Jul 22, 2011

Big Fat Daddy
which, by the way, is really hard to find nowdays (the oil, not BP).

Actually both are.

But point taken.  And I agree.  We are stewards, not a cancer.

on Jul 22, 2011

Big Fat Daddy
nature dumps more oil into the Gulf of Mexico than BP did...which, by the way, is really hard to find nowdays (the oil, not BP)

I would like to know where you get this idea. 
The oil is NOT GONE, they used a chemical to make it sink to the bottom but I guess out of sight is out of mind. 

Dr Guy
Love Canal burned in 1970. It is drinkable now. 

Labour cost is not the only reason companies are moving overseas, environmental laws are a large cost and headache to these companies that have polluted for years. So lets move this factory somewhere in the third world and poison all the peasants there. Out of sight is out of mind again.

Dr Guy
You cannot decide to push society back to the stone age - that defeats the purpose

I would never suggest that rather use technology for the better of all man. It seems to me that now technology is only used to make the few more powerful and the majority have to work more for less. 

on Jul 22, 2011

I won't do the research for you that you apparently are not inclined to do yourself, if you don't like my assertion, prove it wrong...the oil that is at the bottom of the ocean and Gulf of Mexico will be dissipated naturally by biological communities that will form around it...as they do around the thousands of natural fissures throughout the world.  Again, man thinking he has some major impact on the earth is pure hubris.

on Jul 22, 2011

Big Fat Daddy
if you don't like my assertion, prove it wrong

LOL. I did research it and you are completely wrong. I also dont need sources to tell when something smells like BS that it is BS.

on Jul 22, 2011

No, the proponents have already decided to get rid of man and turn the earth into a garden of Eden. All ills of the planet are man's fault, and all cures are the eradication of Man.[/quote]

Oh ya, in their minds we've become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Humans and human happiness and fecundity isn't as important as the planet.

 

 

They want to deprive you of energy (it produces CO2), food (animals produce methane), shelter (they retain heat and use energy), transportation, and clothing (again, it produces both CO2 and methane). So in effect, they seek to remove all means of man's means of sustaining life. They are not "anti-poor" as some think (since their policies would tax them out of existence), but simply anti-people.[/quote]

You're describing the environmental movement's religion...global Green Religion.

 

Big Fat Daddy
Phooey. I believe in the Bible...Earth was created for man, not the other way around...there is sufficient in the earth for man...we (man) could go hog wild and detune every car and run them in too low a gear and smoke up every major city in the world and the earth would survive it. All those cars would not dump as much pollutants into the air as one volcano in Iceland did in a day...and it got cleaned up...Mt Saint Helens left ash all across the USA and it got cleaned up...nature dumps more oil into the Gulf of Mexico than BP did...which, by the way, is really hard to find nowdays (the oil, not BP)...and the beat goes on...man has always had an inflated view of his own importance...cancer?...AIDS?...more like a pimple on the Earth's butt.

I'm with you on this. Man is the crown jewel of Creation but you know the new, "enlightened" people steeped in the Green Religion believe this is obsolete and must be discarded. They believe the heresy that plants and animals are of equal value to humans, with equal rights!

 

[quote who="Big Fat Daddy" reply="5" id="2970729"]nature dumps more oil into the Gulf of Mexico than BP did..

[quote who="myfist0" reply="7" id="2971153"]I would like to know where you get this idea.

It's true. Check this out.

http://www.livescience.com/5422-natural-oil-spills-surprising-amount-seeps-sea.html 

 

 

on Jul 22, 2011

I'm sorry and frustrated about the confused way my comment appeared. I tried to edit it but that didn't work.

on Jul 22, 2011

------

 

 

 

on Jul 22, 2011

 

 

myfist0
Check out Bill Gates quote on using vaccines to depopulate the earth.

Bill Gates Wants Depopulation Through Vaccines and Health Care
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723

I just read the link and now understand better why myfist0 posted this.

All I can say is the Pope warned us that we live in a culture of death. And in this culture, the destruction of people, (depopulation) through vaccines and abortion goes hand in hand with environmental extremism. 

 

on Jul 22, 2011

lulapilgrim
It's true. Check this out.

http://www.livescience.com/5422-natural-oil-spills-surprising-amount-seeps-sea.html 

That's why I like to see the sources. Notice they quote a "recent study" that they did not name so we can only take them at there word and it was paid for by the Seaver Institute who's benefactor was Richard Seaver, Oil Drilling Billionaire. 

Also since when is an article written by staff without names? "LiveScience Staff"?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6552 shows that the dose is the poison and actually lists the names of the people that supply the information so you can check their credentials. 

The Deepwater Horizon site releases 3 to 12 times the oil per day compared to that released by natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico. By May 30, the Deepwater Horizon site had released between 468,000 and 741,000 barrels of oil, compared to 60,000 to 150,000 barrels from natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico over the same 39 day period.

 

 

on Jul 23, 2011

Big Fat Daddy
I won't do the research for you that you apparently are not inclined to do yourself, if you don't like my assertion, prove it wrong...the oil that is at the bottom of the ocean and Gulf of Mexico will be dissipated naturally by biological communities that will form around it...as they do around the thousands of natural fissures throughout the world.  Again, man thinking he has some major impact on the earth is pure hubris.

This is true scientific fact.  

 

myfist0
That's why I like to see the sources. Notice they quote a "recent study" that they did not name so we can only take them at there word and it was paid for by the Seaver Institute who's benefactor was Richard Seaver, Oil Drilling Billionaire. 

Also since when is an article written by staff without names? "LiveScience Staff"?

Myfist0, 

Not accepting the sources, the study or who paid for it doesn't prove BFD's claim wrong. 

Take then the study of Geology. What has Geology given us in regard to natural oil seepage from the ocean's floor? 

Truth is geologists have located natural oil resevoirs containing billions of barrels of oil under the sea.  The oil seepage is from those. 

Here is a geologic explanation of how crude oil is formed...

 

http://electronicsjmbh.blogspot.com/2011/03/formation-process-of-crude-oil.html 

......................................

The only argument I have with these 2 links I provided is that they are in lockstep with Evolution worldview which claims that coal, oil and methane formed in the sea over millions of years.

.....................................................

 

Oil Forming Under Ocean Now

No sooner had the discovery of ongoing natural formation of petroleum been published in the journal Nature,6 than The Australian Financial Review of February 2, 1982 carried an article by Walter Sullivan of The New York Times under the heading ‘Natural oil refinery found under ocean’. The report indicated that

‘The oil is being formed from the unusually rapid breakdown of organic debris by extraordinarily extensive heat flowing through the sediments, offering scientists a singular opportunity to see how petroleum is formed....Ordinarily oil has been thought to form over millions of years whereas in this instance the process is probably occurring in thousands of years.... The activity is not only manufacturing petroleum at relatively high speed but also, by application of volcanic heat, breaking it down into the constituents of gasoline and other petroleum products as in a refinery.’

Map Of the Area
Click image to enlarge.

Figure 1. The Location of the Guaymas Basin in the Gulf of California.

This ‘natural refinery under the ocean’ is found under the waters of the Gulf of California, in an area known as the Guaymas Basin (see Fig. 1). Through this basin is a series of long deep fractures that link volcanoes of the undersea ridge known as the East Pacific Rise with the San Andreas fault system that runs northwards across California. The basin consists of two rift valleys (flat-bottomed valleys bounded by steep cliffs along fault lines), which are filled with 500 metre thick layers of sediments consisting of diatomaceous ooze (made up of the opal-like ‘shells’ of diatoms, single-celled aquatic plants related to algae) and silty mud washed from the nearby land.

 

Along these fractures through the sediments in the basin flows boiling hot water at temperatures above 200°C, the result of deep-seated volcanic activity below the basin. These hot waters (hydrothermal fluids) discharging through the sediments on the ocean floor have been investigated by deep sea divers in mini-submarines.

The hydrothermal activity on the ocean floor releases discrete oil globules (up to 1–2 centimetres in diameter), which are discharged into hydrothermal the ocean water with the hydrothermal fluids.7 Disturbance of the surface layers of the sediments on the ocean bottom also releases oil globules.

Correct measurement of the oil flow rate at these sites has so far not been feasible, but the in situ collection of oil globules has shown that the gas/oil ratio is approximately 5:1. Large mounds of volcanic sinter (solids coalesced by heating) form via precipitation around the vents and spread out in a blanket across the ocean floor for a distance of 25 metres. These sinter deposits consist of clays mixed with massive amounts of metal sulphide minerals, together with other hydrothermal minerals such as barite (barium sulphate) and talc.

The remains of unusual tubeworms that frequent the seawaters around these mounds are also mixed in with the sinter deposits. Thus the organic matter content of these sinter deposits in the mounds approaches 24%.8

The hydrothermal oil from the Guaymas Basin is similar to reservoir crude oils.9 Selected hydrocarbon ratios of the vapour phase are similar to those of the gasoline fraction of typical crude oils, while the general distribution pattern of light volatile hydrocarbons resembles that of crude oils (see Table of analyses) . The elemental composition is within the normal ranges of typical crude oils, while contents of some of the significant organic components, and their distribution, are well within the range of normal crude oils. Other key analytical techniques on the oil give results that are compatible with a predominantly bacterial/algal origin of the organic matter that is the source of the oil and gas.10

This oil and gas has probably formed by the action of hydrothermal processes on the organic matter within the diatomaceous ooze layers in the basin. Of crucial significance is the radiocarbon (C14 ) dating of the oil. Samples have yielded ages between 4,200 and 4,900 years, with uncertainties in the range 50?190 years.11 Thus, the time-temperature conversion of the sedimentary organic matter to hydrothermal petroleum has taken place over a very short geological time-scale (less than 5,000 years) and has occurred under relatively mild temperature conditions.

It is significant also that the temperature conditions in these hydrothermal fluids, of up to and exceeding 315 °C, are similar to the ideal temperatures for oil and gas generation in the previously described Australian laboratory experiments.12 Figure 2a illustrates the oil generation system operating in the Guaymas Basin, while Figure 2b shows how this process could be applied in a closed sedimentary basin to the hydrothermal generation of typical oil and gas deposits.

One potential scenario for oil formation
Click image to enlarge.

 

 

References

  1. Saxby, J. D. and Riley, K. W., 1984. Petroleum generation by laboratory-scaled pyrolysis over six years simulating conditions in a subsiding basin. Nature, vol. 308, pp. 177–179.
  2. Saxby, J. D., Bennett, A.J.R., Corcoran, J.F., Lambert, D.E. and Riley, K.W., 1986. Petroleum generation: simulation over six years of hydrocarbon formation from torbanite and brown coal in a subsiding basin. Organic Geochemistry, vol. 9(2), pp. 69–81. 
  3. Saxby and Riley, ref. 1, p. 178. 
  4. Saxby et al., ref. 2, p. 80. 
  5. Saxby and Riley, ref. 1, p. 178. 
  6. Simonelt, B.R.T. and Lonsdale, P.F., 1982. hydrothermal petroleum in mineralized mounds at the seabed of Guaymas Basin. Nature, vol. 295, pp. 198–212. 
  7. Didyk, B.M. and Simoneit, B.R.T., 1989, hydrothermal oil of Guaymas Basin and implications for petroleum formation mechanisms. Nature, vol. 342, pp. 65–69. 
  8. Didyk and Simoneit, ref. 7, p. 65. 
  9. Didyk and Simoneit, ref. 7, p. 66. 
  10. Didyk and Simoneit, ref. 7, p. 66. 
  11. Peter, J.M., Kawka, O. E., Scott, S. D. and Simoneit, B.R.T., 1988, Third Chemistry Congress of North America. Toronto, abstract GEOC 036.
  12. Saxby et al., ref. 1 and ref. 2. 
  13. Didyk and Simoneit, ref. 7, p. 69. 
  14. Didyk and Simoneit, ref. 7, p. 69.