"Anti-ecological" site: good or bad faith?

[nonoLeRobot]

Hello,

I wanted to point out this site to you: http://www.contrepoints.org/category/so ... ironnement

Identify many "anti-green" elements it would be interesting to verify or counter them.

AB

[Christophe]

Hi Nono,

Can you specify the points you want to discuss here? It goes from rooster to donkey ... so ...

That the global ecological interest of electric cars is questionable is a proven fact.

Questioning human human responsibility for climate change is much more questionable (but Allegre knows how to be very convincing in this game ...)

Your message reminds me of this debate that we have already had: https://www.econologie.com/forums/marre-des- ... 10666.html

[dedeleco]

Site mixing all kinds of delusions little detailed with real information of exactions under ecological camouflage, without answers and therefore good to die to answer !!
A book has already answered Claude Allégre and his lies !!

Some facts that are never presented:
the earth contains in fossil fuels of all kinds (coal, oil, gas, etc.) much more than what is necessary to burn all the oxygen in our atmosphere and therefore enough to multiply by 10 the CO2 if we burn too much of these fuels !!! And therefore heat the planet on the surface from 15 to 20 ° C in addition, poles melted at 15 ° C, as was the case 56 million years ago spontaneously !!!!
demonstration never said:
The oxygen in our atmosphere is renewed approximately every 200000 years and therefore since the 600 million years of multicellular life, this O2 has been renewed 600 / 0,2 = 3000 times with as much carbonaceous matter formed and therefore it remains stored in carbon soil much more than 1/3000, enough to no longer be able to breathe while burning all the oxygen !!!

So multiplying CO10 by 2 very quickly, with certain fusion of the two poles, 70m of higher seas, Paris under 40m of water, etc... !!!

Even C Allégre cannot say that it is false and impossible !!!
We can simply discuss the time required in a few centuries for fossil fuels !!

What is discussed is not the certainty of global warming by CO2, but its magnitude in the short term !!!

Or the earth's climate for 5 million years has become more and more unstable, oscillating more and more between extreme glaciations and normal heat, even 2 to 3 ° C more than today, and seas 5m higher, 125000 years ago, without human CO2 spontaneously !!
See figure wikipedia already put on econology !!

So current warming is perfectly possible stimulated by human CO2 in addition, thanks to this intrinsic instability of the current climate, much stronger than in the past more than 5 million years ago !!
Scientists only discuss the value of this instability, by an effect of CO2 !!!

It is crucial to limit atmospheric CO2 as soon as possible, since it is likely that our agriculture and breeding for 10000 years, even prehistoric, saved us from the beginning of a new glaciation which according to the cycles of Milankovitch, should have started for a few thousand years !!!
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Param%C3%A ... kovi%C4%87
and with the figure of increasingly unstable oscillations over the past 5 million years to look carefully in front of the transition problem paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

And with our future overheated by excessive CO2 instead of glaciation as in the past, for example starting 120000 years ago !!!
We can not laugh with CO2 at all !!!!

[Obamot]

Just go there:
http://www.contrepoints.org/a-propos

Liberalism has never got along well with ecology, it only comes to terms with it. If the "last millennium" was still without inevitable consequences, it is no longer so today. Continuing on the current momentum, before the swan song it will unfortunately smell of fir ...

Furthermore, I find that their slogan:

- "Leveling up"

... is immeasurably cynical.

[FUX.]

Hello,

First article taken at random ( http://www.contrepoints.org/2011/10/21/ ... x-indignes :

"On the other hand, it is clear that a good part of you are simply, and rightly so, citizens fed up with nepotism, patronage and shameless cronyism between power and the business world. You are young and worried about your future. You want a better life. You are told that capitalism is the cause of your problems and that only a collectivist revolution will improve your lot. "

Like you are sheep bunch of sheep with your collective wills and blah farted and repeated anticommunism the rest of the article is not much better.

They could have talked about humanoid opportunism but it may not be very compatible with their position

[Ahmed]

Obamot, you write:

Liberalism has never gotten along with ecology, it only accommodates it.

It is a shortcut, allow me to clarify: at the beginning, when the nascent ecology still had a subversive potential, liberalism (which was soon to mutate into neoliberalism) did not "adapt" to it at all. , then, seeing all the advantage he could draw from it, found himself very well, as much in terms of marketing as of new markets (title of Challenges: "Green economy, the new El Dorado").
Obviously, on the bottom, the antagonism remains, but the current ecology, emptied of its meaning, is nothing more than an empty shell.

... on the current launch, before the swan song it will unfortunately smell of fir ...

Yes, but PEFC or FSC certified fir.

[Obamot]

And yes, these are accommodations you are talking about. So we are relatively in agreement?

Apart from that of course, a summary is necessarily reductive!

But even if those who are on the "good side", among those who practice liberalism (I mean those who have the wallet in the right pocket...) the very ones who pull the chestnuts out of the fire by making some advantages with ecology for alibi, it's good:
- because under popular pressure [they are] somewhat obliged to do so;
- always and again to make profit $;
- to make us forget in passing the real issues linked to the preservation of "natural capital".

Since in principle only THEIR capital account ... ("after me the flood", the common good they do not care ...)

That said, basically, I believe that policies in good faith (?) And of all stripes are often largely overwhelmed by events when they come to power. They also have no great imagination and are conditioned by short-sighted electoral deadlines, as long as they are not more prosaically corrupt ... Thus they rely on theoretical models (interpretations of vague disastrous university studies - based on often biased statistics - because the speech must necessarily seduce and go "in the direction of the hair" ...)

So I don't see a revolution coming in this century ...

[Ahmed]

Of course we agree!

As for the obligation for a politician to respect "popular pressure", that does not seem to me to be true as long as that in view of the austerity measures that we are promised!
I recently saw on LCP, a discussion on the question between an aeropage of "experts", all the more serene as very little concerned by what they recommend ...

I noticed that you took care to put the expression "natural capital" in quotation marks, despite that it remains quite shocking.

[Obamot]

Shocking? This is when I am affable ... ( )

Otherwise they call nature: "mineral resources"Or deposits, and" popular pressure "=>" the market "no?

[sen-no-sen]

The counterpoints site is full of crisp articles, in particular the first, extracted from the book by Pascal bruckner The fanaticism of the Apocalypse, I quote (...)"Ecology has nowhere taken political power. Yet it dictates its laws to us like totalitarianism (...) Sorting is indeed a form of dictatorship !!!

And even funnier:

(...)Ecology is a total ideology. It brings together theses drawn from Marxism, Trotskyism or Maoism. Like other ideologies, it acts in the name of good and promises a better world. Its enemy is the individual and capitalism. It is also interesting to note that in wishing to protect the Planet he is aiming for the disappearance of Man. (...). Of course, all vilified scientific research, all technological progress is concealed. There is no salvation on the side of science.(...)

However, it seemed to me that ecology was precisely a field of science, and was therefore devoid of political character?

For the rest of the articles we would need a point by point analysis, but overall, the general idea that emerges from this site is that of someone who has no desire to change his lifestyle ... and who finds justifications are point of view in such or such publication at its convenience.