The Lorax

Most of this is opinion and rhetoric and not proven fact. Dave, I have a question for you, and I need an honest answer: Where did you learn what you know about the environment?

You feel misrepresented, Dave. You feel people are saying you want to trash the planet. That's not what I'm saying. I know you're a great guy and a true Christian with good intentions. What worries me is that you don't seem to think Earth CAN be trashed. You seem to think the environment isn't of any concern. That's what I disagree with, based on evidence. If you look around, you will see mass pollution, disappearing water supplies, disappearing gas, disappearing forests, spreading deserts and other undeniably NEGATIVE changes with undeniably HUMAN causes. Are these imaginary, dave? You follow politics, do you not? As you feel you are being misrepresented, Dave, so do I. For instance, I'm not some flaming alarmist. I don't claim global warming or pollution will be the end of the world or the end of man. However, these things will make living conditions worse before Jesus comes back. Going green makes life a little cleaner and a little better, in the same way that cleaning your house and spending wisely makes life a little cleaner and better. That's all I'm saying. God created the environment, so you could say he's the ultimate environmentalist.

I trust non-political gov't agencies more than I trust the media. When it comes to energy, I trust the Energy Information Administration. Just like when it comes to weather, I trust the National Weather Service. I don't doubt you. You know Gloucester, MA--where all the girls got pregnant? Time "broke" the story about Gloucester, my hometown. They sensationalized it greatly. Every network does this, and it's not about political bias; it's about ratings. HOWEVER, the meat of the article was the statistic coming from the EIA, not from Time. That's why I said your rant about time is an excuse--it doesn't justify rejecting info from the EIA. I'd rather not. But I do have a question for you: Do you think Fox News is fair and balanced? Do you think it's politically neutral?

No. I want evidence that said drop has ANYTHING to do with "talking about drilling." In the last two posts, you've shown me a great deal about yourself. You've shown that, when confronted with a fact you don't like, you will reject it. You will make up an excuse about the liberal media, even though the information didn't come from the liberal media. Now, if you don't believe in government information just because it came to you through the liberal media, then the onus is on you to find the gov't report. But until you do, your automatic rejection of disagreeable information proves just how dogmatic your ideology is, and what a powerful bias it has on your perception of reality.

Bull. I dare you to find actual evidence for this. And no, your personal ideology driven speculation doesn't count as evidence. The figures didn't come from Time. They came from the government. The EIA. It amuses me that you put more faith in your own wild speculations than in actual information from professionals in government. It explains a lot.

Bush definitely sees himself as the Dark Knight--a rich, reviled crusader battling against all odds. Everyone else knows him as the Dim Knight, though.

What about it? Liberal media. It must be convenient, dismissing facts whenever they disagree with you. The figures come from the EIA--a government agency--not the liberal media. Try again.

What about it?

No one's saying we should throw out financial investments. We're just thinking in the long term. Thoughts like "what happens when the oil is gone?" As a propertied citizen, your assets are at your disposal. Do you then dispose of them? No...you use them wisely and mindfully. You realize there are consequences. Nowhere does the Bible say God will clean up our messes and renew resources when we exhaust them. When did Heiress make that comparison? No one thinks we should keep the Earth in its original condition--that's already impossible. No one here has said God told us not to touch the Earth. You're turning a matter of common sense into a theological straw-man. The issue is keeping the Earth is a nice state that 7 billion people can survive in; a state that our grandchildren can live comfortably in. In case you didn't know, there haven't always been billions of people on Earth. There haven't always been cities, highways, jets, mines, and oil rigs. But there are now, and it's having an effect. The least we can do is try to MINIMIZE that effect. No one is saying we should dismantle civilization and kill ourselves for the good of God or nature. It seems the only way anti-environmentalists can argue is to hugely misrepresent everyone else's point of view.

...Hmm, probably the part where it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/...1815884,00.html

Diplomacy?! Oh NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Very true. There's nothing Christian about that mentality of entitlement. Exactly.

Ignorance begets negligence. The more you learn about the environment, the more you learn everything within it is interconnected. If you dump waste into the ocean, that waste will impact living systems. It's called cause and effect. Anti-environmentalists fundamentally deny this simple fact. You're confused, Dave. To acknowledge that man damages his environment is not to claim that man is God. ...Far from it.

If you mean the rock as a whole, then you're right. It's pretty safe from us. As for what's living on it, that's a different story. Right. If you care for Creation, then you must not believe in the Bible. Funny, oil seems to be depleting rather quickly. In my honest opinion, all I've seen from anti-environmentalists in this thread is empty rhetoric. There's no science or Scripture that justifies the agenda of environmental negligence. None.

How do you figure? It doesn't "save" energy...It simply changes the source of the energy. If I spend the $60k it would cost to solarize my home...I'm still using energy. And I'll be long dead before I could even hope to break even on the money. Even those stupid lightbulbs (which do burn out) cost 500% more than a regular lightbulb, save you a measley $1-2 a year. C'mon...it doesn't take a genius to realize that somebody is taking this to the bank. Its snake-oil salesmen all over again. You think these turbine powered skyscrapers are going to cost less to rent than a normally powered sckscraper...lol. No Way! And who do you think is gonna foot the bill for those barren wastelands (lol) filled with solar panels? They don't bother to tell you that it costs more to produce these landfill fuels either? They are not gonna give the stuff away for free. In fact, thats one reason they are so happy that gas prices are so high..because it makes it easier to justify the cost. And that special pollution sucking asphalt...say hello to astronomical state taxes when they start laying that stuff down. The green revolution is one big grab at our liberty and our money...nothing more. This rant is very short-sighted. Like all investments, green tech cost money upfront. The question is, are the returns worth it? If you are short-sighted, and can't see past tomorrow, then of course your answer will be NO. If you don't care about future generations, then of course your answer will be NO. But some people are more caring.

...So, are you taking issue with the OP or not? I support the green movement because I care about future generations. Does that motivation come from hell?

Utopia is, by definition, non-existent. But these inventions, as a matter of fact, exist. Do you think Jesus would support the trashing of Creation?

I don't know about you, but I'm excited about it. There's a lot to look forward to: Disposable plastics that disintegrate in sunlight rather than outlive us. Landfill waste turning into fuel for cars. Not relying on oppressive Islamist regimes for fuel. Crops growing on the roofs of buildings. Undoing deserts with self-propagating oases. Skyscrapers powered by frictionless micro-turbines on their surface. Never having to replace a dead light bulb. Faster and more fuel efficient planes flying on the edge of the atmosphere and space. Fiber optic cable piping sunlight deep indoors. Saving forests by making paper out of weeds. Otherwise-barren wastelands filled with solar panels, driving entire cities and states. Special asphalt leeching pollution out of the air. Replacing toxic, flammable batteries with ultra-capacitors. Mega-blimps and bullet trains that make for cheap, enjoyable travel. Never seeing smog again. These aren't fantasies. All these technologies exist, either on the market or in development. I can't wait.

I slightly disagree. Whereever conditions supporting life exist, then there is a possibility that life exists there. It's not "blind faith" but rather a "plausible expectation."

Never heard of them. I've only criticized conservatives in this thread, but I've definitely seen liberals who needlessly call people racists and such. Luckily, these people don't have shows on major networks...that I'm aware of.

Upon request, I've made a thread explaining my negative opinion of the handful of right-wing pundits whom I named earlier. It is not their views so much as their divisive messages, their un-journalistic tactics, and their regrettable deeds that irk me. Now, many of my grievances are anecdotal, but I've also listed consistent thematic problems they display. Here goes: Bill O'Reilly Habitually interrupts and drowns out his guests. Sometimes, if yelling fails, he turns off their mic. Personally attacks and insults guests, as a routine. (Example 1: When a high school student pointed out a misquote by O'Reilly and showed how context is crucial, O'Reilly cut off the 16-year-old and proceeded to insult him, calling him "a pinhead." Example 2: When a 9/11 victim suggested that the U.S.'s training of the Mujahideen had helped enable 9/11, O'Reilly cut him off, called him a liar, a traitor, and presumed to speak on behalf of the young man's mother and his dead father. Then O'Reilly disabled the guest's mic, threatened him with violence, and ejected him from the show.) Has physically threatened guests during commercial breaks, then used security guards to remove them Refuses invitations to come on the show of rivals, then challenges them to come on his show instead. If they refuse, he calls them a coward. (Example: Bill Moyers.) Calls people who question the Constitutionality of executive decisions "traitors." Sexually harrassed his producer. Proffered a lengthy, graphic description of his sexual fantasies about her. Was sued and settled. Confuses loofah sponges with falafels. Uses fake statistics to justify arguments. Politicized a tragedy in order to attack immigrants, to the immense displeasure of victim's grieving family. Anne Coulter: Infuses her columns with heavy sarcasm, straw-man arguments, and strained attempts to demonstrate that liberals are hypocrites. In this way, her rants are formulaic and tend to be selfsame. Wishes death upon her enemies. (Example: Stands by her wish that the NY Times building suffers a terrorist attack.) Made light of Elizabeth Edwards' cancer and the death of the Edwards' son. Stands by her acccusation that vocal 9/11 widows are self-obsessed opportunists who don't sincerely grieve the deaths of their husbands. Thinks the country would be better off if women didn't vote. Called John Edwards gay using the worst possible slur. (Begins with f-.) Michelle Malkin Defends the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII. Called for boycott of Dunkin Donuts because an ad featured Rachel Ray in scarf somewhat resembling keffiyeh. Emulates Coulter's sarcastic tone and strained searches for liberal hypocrisy. Has long history of xenophobic remarks and positions. (Example: U.S. citizens should be barred from making campaign contributions if they are legal immigrants or don't speak English.) Rush Limbaugh Called troops who disagree with the Iraq War "phony soldiers." Advocates abuse of democratic system as way to "bloody up" Barack Obama. Accused Michael J. Fox of faking symptoms of Parkinson's disease. (To his credit, he later apologized.) Has a history of racist comments. However, he might not actually be racist; stupid comments seem to be inevitable when one talks as frequently and as loudly as he does. I don't listen to him as often as the above, so I can't give my analysis of his general style.) Michael Savage [*]Considers liberalism a mental disorder. (Rather than, say, a set of values with which he disagrees.) [*]Thinks all Muslims should be deported. [*]Has history of stupid comments, like those on autism. I don't listen to him as often as the above, so I can't give my analysis of his general style. Sean Hannity [*]I don't appreciate his occasional bullying of guests and cohost Colmes, but I'll let him off the hook because he pales in comparison to the others. A common problem: All these pundits mix their acrimony with patriotic rhetoric. They use patriotism as a weapon, accusing dissidents of being unpatriotic, un-American, traitors and cowards. Ironically though, it is these pundits who are hurting America with their divisive messages and dishonest tactics. It is, to steal their most beloved term, "hypocritical."

Wow, looks like we at Worthy are really in the know!

83% for me. The questions I got wrong both had numerical answers. I'm not really a math guy.

12 questions, mostly about the U.S. The average American gets 50% of the questions right. http://pewresearch.org/newsiq/quiz/