1500 words and no mention of Lomborg? Mr Monbiot is not for real.

Environmentalism, the Hollywood and London kind, is a religion. Its leadership enjoys a blind faith that's the envy of Catholicism. Environmentalism is basically a way for lefties (and sometimes others) to imagine dicking endlessly with the lives of others, dressing its centralized coercion in vestments of righteousness.

Thanks for noticing that the Prius-driving movie star is enjoying a exaggerated standard of living in every other realm (fresh exotic foods, travel, lush home and furnishings), an exaggeration sustained by the burning of FOSSIL FUELS.

But they want you in a Camry. It's for "the planet," doncha know.

Fuck 'em.

So, Crid, which of those four questions did you answer "no" to? Just curious as to where exactly you and common sense decided to part company.

Hi Patrick! What's new? Where the hell have you been?

So, Crid, which of those four...

In context? All of them. The list is not the Voight-Kampff test you imagine it to be.

Let's shuck right down to the cob here. Let's say that global warming is happening, and further assume that it's certainly because of man's conduct (though I don't believe that for a moment). What do you want to do about it?

Use whatever words you like in response, I'm pretty sure it translates as "Fuck with people." As mentioned, you're in a religion, and Unbelievers must be punished. They blaspheme Allah!

Free your mind, Christian Soldier. Read this man's book:

http://www.lomborg.com/

And these articles, courtesy Dutton:

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html

I, for one, think people should do as much as they can to respect (preserve) the planet -- personally, and by promoting conservation in others. At the moment, I'm trying to scrape together the money for an Insight or a Prius. You, Crid?

Oh, and welcome back, Patrick. You've been missed!

Surely every government policy ever instigated can more or less be translated as "fuck with people."

Anarchy now!

1) Yes. So does the hydrosphere and the geosphere.
2) Yes, but not nearly as much as atmospheric DHMO...that's the stuff we really need to ban.
3) Maybe, maybe not. This is one of those areas where we simply don't have enough data to say with certainty.
4) Yep. Those damn Chinamen keep burning coal like there's no tomorrow!

Want to clean up the atmosphere? Support your local nuclear power plant.

"Support your local nuclear power plant."

Now there's a proposal that will find a lot of public support!

> I, for one, think people should do as much as
> they can...

As much as they can is a very, very stringent standard. You don't mean it.

> ...personally...

So no more of those hydrocarbon-heavy jaunts to Gay Paree? On behalf of the biosphere, Thanks!

> ...an Insight or a Prius. You, Crid?

I'll continue to enjoy my Mitsubishi Eclipse, with an eye on a new Chrysler Crossfire. My car has been, and will probably always be: 2 doors, six cylinders, leather seats, air conditioning, CD player and all the rest is incidental.

> Surely every government policy ever instigated
> can more or less be translated as "fuck with
> people."

LYT I'd agree except that people are taking such a high-school-prom-night approach to figuring out who's in and who's out. The Monbiot piece is the perfect example, as is Amy's mockery of those scientists who don't align themselves with her appraisal. If it's all in good fun, fine.

But if she's serious, it shows all the signs of being a faith. And you know how she feels about those.

> Anarchy now!

Crossfire soon!

PS- Thanks to Jason for mentioning emergent cultures and economies such as the Chinese. Shouldn't they enjoy modern industrialized medicine and convenient air travel to Paris as well? Or would it be bad if another billion people lived as well as we do?

Lena, read this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=524313

The correct answers are, in order:

1): Yes
2): Yes, but we don't know how or how much
3): Maybe, maybe not
4): Yes

But of course, all of that's irrelevant. The relevant question is: if the answer to those four questions is, in each case, "yes", are carbon emissions bad? Anyone who claims scientific certainty that the answer to THAT question is "yes" is a fraud, a liar, or both.

at the end of the day u guys can sit here and argue and philosopise until ur blue in the face? what are you exactly doing apart from just getting aggravated with others? My advice to you is get up of your pc chairs and go and help in however small a way to save the friggin universe.

Let's see, Lauz...you post here telling us we're idiots for posting here? Right. Somehow, we manage to have rich, full lives and still manage to have time to discuss issues here. You stay home and watch television dear, if that makes you feel better, and seems less likely to give rise to a need for a review of your anger management workshop. I have a new campaign against SUVs coming out. What are YOU doing for the environment -- I mean, when you aren't hopping around to blogs to tell people what jerks they are. PS I'm not exactly "pc" -- kind of an antiquate term, huh? I get hate mail every week for my lack of "pc"-ness. One week alone, I was accused of being anti-Semitic, anti-Arab, anti-male, anti-woman, anti-autistic, and anti-SUV. Yes, by the way, on the anti-SUV. Perhaps a prescription increase is in order, Lauz?