See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Who are the Branch Carbonians?
Source:
WashingtonExaminer.com
URL Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o ... ranch-Carbonians-61251277.html
Published: Sep 24, 2009
Author: Mark Tapscott
Post Date: 2009-09-26 05:24:18 by sourcery
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 327
Comments: 26
Are radical environmentalists members of a political movement or more like the devotees of a religious cult, one that might dubbed the Branch Carbonians? Truespeak.org's Jim Guirardi suggests the label and offers an illuminating case for the latter in this post from the American Thinker. There is much more to Guirardi's piece, but as a sample, here are his 10 reasons these fanatical devotees qualify as participants in a cult. If these sound somehow familiar, they are based on the criteria elaborated upon in the 2003 book, "Kingdom of the Cults,"by Walter Martin and Ravi Zacharia: 1. Leadership by a self-glorifying, manipulative New Age Prophet -- in this case, former Vice-President Al Gore, though he is rapidly being supplanted by President Barack Obama. 2. Assertion of an apocalyptic threat to all mankind. 3. An absolutist definition of both the threat and the proposed solution(s). 4. Promise of a salvation from this pending apocalypse. 5. Devotion to an inspired text which (arguendo) embodies all the answers -- in this case, Prophet Gore's pseudo-scientific book "Earth in the Balance" and his more recent "An Inconvenient Truth" documentary. 6. A specific list of "truths" (see the Ten Commandments listed below) which must be embraced and proselytized by all Cult members.. 7. An absolute intolerance of any deviation from any of these truths by any Cult member. 8. A strident intolerance of any outside criticism of the Cult's definition of the problem or of its proposed solutions. 9. A "Heaven-on-Earth" vision of the results of the mission's success and/or a "Hell-on-Earth" result if the cultic mission should fail. 10. An inordinate fear (and an outright rejection of the possibility) of being proven wrong in either the apocalyptic vision or the proposed salvation.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
#2. To: sourcery (#0)
Environmentalism as practiced by members of the Dirt Worshippers is basically still Materialism i.e., a belief that existence and awareness are solely predicated upon the physical universe - Matter, Energy, Space, and Time. It is deep down really quite shallow as there is more to existence than their narrow, almost maniacal (at the very least neurotic) focus upon plants and animals. Not that they are not important but that they are not the totality of existence. As well seems to be the anti-human thread, again neurotic to psychotic, which fixates upon ALL humans as the cause rather than SOME humans who disregard all non-material considerations. The belief system of the environuts is so confused, and disorganized as to nearly defy analysis beyond noting that they are NUTS.
As well seems to be the anti-human thread, again neurotic to psychotic, which fixates upon ALL humans as the cause rather than SOME humans who disregard all non-material considerations. The belief system of the environuts is so confused, and disorganized as to nearly defy analysis beyond noting that they are NUTS. Admittedly, you de-humanize those that actually care about the planet. You have confused modern international corporate, industrial and manufacturing capability and production techniques/methods with stripping the forests around the world so you can feel all cozy roasting chestnuts over an open fire during your Christmas retreat. Meanwhile, the CO2 concentrations in the open aire are increasing.
So what? The concentrations have been over 1500 in the past and when it was, the planet was a riot of diversity. While the issue is posed as one of "planetary survival" what it really is is one of control over other humans couched in terms of what proponents want to see "preserved". Even during quiescent times the average lifespan of a species is about 5-7 million years. Many times in the past the slate has been wiped 80+% clean. What was the result of the "wipings"? Massive adaptive radiation and arising of new species. We may alter the planet, and it's within our power to guide that in a direction amenable to existing life and to our esthetic desires but only within a tiny moment in geologic time. Bottom line though, you'd have to reliquify the lithosphere to "exterminate" life on this globe and even then, I wouldn't put money on it's not re-emerging from reservoirs below that given that we've found examples that survive at multiples of atmospheric pressure and beyond waters boiling point. So, from a devils advocate poit of view, what if it's "real" and injects chaos into the human world? While we always individually desire peace and stability, look what it brings in the end to "developed" nations; stagnation, hedonism, desires for statism to preserve the "norm", decay. The world is dynamic, but it's always going to be here. Don't give in to the sweet nothings whispered by those desiring control just to assuage your desires to do "do something"...
See my post above. If you note your comment and place it with respect to time it appears a bit naive, don't you think? After all, life as we know it (today) has not existed with that high of CO2 concentrations.
The oxygen levels were higher too. Does that imply that "life as we know it" would be impossible? I know you are a "true believer" bucky and so contrary data does not compute. When CO2 goes up plants grow at a faster rate, thus their respiration rate increases (plants breathe CO2 and exhale O2, consequently the oxygen level goes up. Thus it is a mutually beneficial combination. I realize that this is a religious issue for you but that does not require me to go to your Church.
No. But to regress hundreds of millions of years ago seems a bit prehistoric doesn't it?
No. But to regress hundreds of millions of years ago seems a bit prehistoric doesn't it? Is history and the climatologic record of no value then? We can look at and see in the record of life on earth how conditions have varied and how life nevertheless persists. It may have to adapt to changing conditions, or in the case of man surmount them, but it nevertheless manages to somehow survive - even in time periods with a much greater CO2 level. Globull Warming, and its mythos, is best viewed as a PsyOp. It does not use or adapt to conflicting data, it does not account for it, and the theories remain inerrant as received "wisdom". Thus it is NOT science - it is a belief system independent of science but with the color of science. It has been packaged, marketed, and sold so as to promote an agenda much different from what it purports to be doing.
Most definately. and Buck, you didn't bust anything. And correlation is not causation by any stretch. That said temp always follows CO2. Always. And the correlation between sun activity and temp is much better.
OK, we have always enjoyed the great benefits of CO2 concentrations while loving the rising temperatures through out the last 200,000 years. Meanwhile, Original_Intent wants us reduced to DNA/RNA protoplasm ... akin to a cosmic goo because we can adapt and change again.
Oh he wants no such thing. Personal attacks are unbecoming.
He is obviously arguing Darwin's Thesis concerning the Origin of Species and Descent of Man. Yet, all I am saying is his argument falls on the floor with his own discussion (although I placed it within a pictorial context for viewing pleasure)------ He argues about millions of years ago being some sort of sustained and unequivocal evidence to point out that CO2 was higher at some point (well before any human lifeform) wherein we are seeing a few thousand years of temperature rise simultaneously and tightly coupled with massive human engineering efforts all over the planet. These same efforts are destroying the planet, from the break-ups of the arctic and Antarctic to the complete elimination of entire seas. And you think that we are not impacting the planet? And you think there is some sort of "hope" that Original_Intent claims?
I think you have swallowed too much kool-aide actually. I told you I could get you on a forum where you could get the science rather than the propaganda we are fed.
Your obvious bias runs chills down my backbone.
There are no replies to Comment # 25. End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Original_Intent (#2)
Environmentalism as practiced by members of the Dirt Worshippers is basically still Materialism i.e., a belief that existence and awareness are solely predicated upon the physical universe - Matter, Energy, Space, and Time. It is deep down really quite shallow as there is more to existence than their narrow, almost maniacal (at the very least neurotic) focus upon plants and animals. Not that they are not important but that they are not the totality of existence.
#9. To: buckeroo (#3)
Meanwhile, the CO2 concentrations in the open aire are increasing.
#14. To: Axenolith (#9)
The concentrations have been over 1500 in the past and when it was, the planet was a riot of diversity.
#15. To: buckeroo, Axenolith (#14)
#16. To: Original_Intent (#15)
Does that imply that "life as we know it" would be impossible?
#17. To: buckeroo, farmfriend (#16)
Does that imply that "life as we know it" would be impossible?
#19. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo, sourcery. (#17)
is best viewed as a PsyOp. It does not use or adapt to conflicting data, it does not account for it, and the theories remain inerrant as received "wisdom". Thus it is NOT science - it is a belief system independent of science but with the color of science. It has been packaged, marketed, and sold so as to promote an agenda much different from what it purports to be doing.
#20. To: farmfriend, Original_Intent (#19)
and Buck, you didn't bust anything.
#21. To: buckeroo, Original_Intent (#20)
#22. To: farmfriend, Original_Intent (#21)
Oh he wants no such thing.
We can look at and see in the record of life on earth how conditions have varied and how life nevertheless persists. It may have to adapt to changing conditions, or in the case of man surmount them, but it nevertheless manages to somehow survive - even in time periods with a much greater CO2 level. -- Original_Intent
Original_Intent's comment was perverse actually .... 
The CO2 levels of the atmosphere are near historic lows. CO2, in every Paleoclimatologic study made, is a lagging indicator of a global increase in temperature - that is the geologic record shows CO2 levels increasing AFTER a warm up. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere during the age of the dinoaurs, the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous, were much higher than they are now and the world did not come to an end. Global average temperatures have, again, been much higher by several degrees average in prior periods. -- Original_Intent
#23. To: buckeroo (#22)
And you think there is some sort of "hope" that Original_Intent claims?
#25. To: farmfriend (#23)
Replies to Comment # 25.