I don’t know which disturbs me more, that some alarmist ignoramus wrote that palm oil plantations threaten orang utans, or that tens of thousands of supposedly intelligent people parrot that statement without bothering to check its authenticity.

It occurred to me last night that parroting a statement without bothering to check its authenticity is a defining feature of religion. So my first question is:

When did environmentalism become a religion?

My second question is:

Is it fair to define a religion as: Charity + Propaganda?

My third question is:

By number of followers, how does environmentalism compare with other small religions?

————-

I note that environmentalism has already divided into several sects. For example, hard core environmentalists are opposed to the use of renewable resources – hydro, forestry, palm oil, etc.

don’t know which disturbs me more, that some alarmist ignoramus wrote that palm oil plantations threaten orang utans, or that tens of thousands of supposedly intelligent people parrot that statement without bothering to check its authenticity.

——

Could you provide us with proof that your statements are true?

The Bornean orangutan is endangered according to the IUCN Red List of mammals, and is listed on Appendix I of CITES. The total number of Bornean orangutans is estimated to be less than 14% of what it was in the recent past (from around 10,000 years ago until the middle of the 20th century), and this sharp decline has occurred mostly over the past few decades due to human activities and development. Species distribution is now highly patchy throughout Borneo; it is apparently absent or uncommon in the southeast of the island, as well as in the forests between the Rejang River in central Sarawak and the Padas River in western Sabah (including the Sultanate of Brunei). A population of around 6,900 is found in Sabangau National Park, but this environment is at risk. According to an anthropologist at Harvard University, in 10 to 20 years, orangutans are expected to be extinct in the wild if no serious effort is made to overcome the threats they are facing.

This view is also supported by the United Nations Environment Programme, which stated in its 2007 report that due to illegal logging, fire and the extensive development of oil palm plantations, orangutans are endangered, and if the current trend continues, they will become extinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornean_orangutan#Conservation_status

>It occurred to me last night that parroting a statement without bothering to check its authenticity is a defining feature of religion.

I would think restating as facts in the daytime the obviously wrong things that occurred to one late last night could also be the defining feature of religion.

Soso said:

>It occurred to me last night that parroting a statement without bothering to check its authenticity is a defining feature of religion.

I would think restating as facts in the daytime the obviously wrong things that occurred to one late last night could also be the defining feature of religion.

Zing

Bubblecar said:

The Bornean orangutan is endangered according to the IUCN Red List of mammals, and is listed on Appendix I of CITES. The total number of Bornean orangutans is estimated to be less than 14% of what it was in the recent past (from around 10,000 years ago until the middle of the 20th century), and this sharp decline has occurred mostly over the past few decades due to human activities and development. Species distribution is now highly patchy throughout Borneo; it is apparently absent or uncommon in the southeast of the island, as well as in the forests between the Rejang River in central Sarawak and the Padas River in western Sabah (including the Sultanate of Brunei). A population of around 6,900 is found in Sabangau National Park, but this environment is at risk. According to an anthropologist at Harvard University, in 10 to 20 years, orangutans are expected to be extinct in the wild if no serious effort is made to overcome the threats they are facing.

This view is also supported by the United Nations Environment Programme, which stated in its 2007 report that due to illegal logging, fire and the extensive development of oil palm plantations, orangutans are endangered, and if the current trend continues, they will become extinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornean_orangutan#Conservation_status

I was going to pick out one or two links myself, but Bubblecar’s link above says it all. It would appear mollwollfumble that you are wrong yet again.

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t know which disturbs me more, that some alarmist ignoramus wrote that palm oil plantations threaten orang utans, or that tens of thousands of supposedly intelligent people parrot that statement without bothering to check its authenticity.

It occurred to me last night that parroting a statement without bothering to check its authenticity is a defining feature of religion. So my first question is:

When did environmentalism become a religion?

My second question is:

Is it fair to define a religion as: Charity + Propaganda?

My third question is:

By number of followers, how does environmentalism compare with other small religions?

————-

I note that environmentalism has already divided into several sects. For example, hard core environmentalists are opposed to the use of renewable resources – hydro, forestry, palm oil, etc.

What a load of cobblers!

People who are concerned about the environment have very good reason to be and if you take those activity involved with environmental research, virtually without exception they are highly pessimistic about the future unless corrective action is not commenced without delay.

mollwollfumble, has it ever occurred to you that it might be your remarkable lack of knowledge about environmental matters that is the reason you hold your current views. Not only me but all professionals involved in the environment are crying out for people in control to listen to them, yet we are continually demeaned and undermined by greedy vested interests and the ignorant. For God’s sake man open your bloody eyes and look around you. You say you have been to Indonesia, yet you learnt nothing, as you are so tired up in your little world and can’t be bothered looking elsewhere.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t know which disturbs me more, that some alarmist ignoramus wrote that palm oil plantations threaten orang utans, or that tens of thousands of supposedly intelligent people parrot that statement without bothering to check its authenticity.

It occurred to me last night that parroting a statement without bothering to check its authenticity is a defining feature of religion. So my first question is:

When did environmentalism become a religion?

My second question is:

Is it fair to define a religion as: Charity + Propaganda?

My third question is:

By number of followers, how does environmentalism compare with other small religions?

————-

I note that environmentalism has already divided into several sects. For example, hard core environmentalists are opposed to the use of renewable resources – hydro, forestry, palm oil, etc.

What a load of cobblers!

People who are concerned about the environment have very good reason to be and if you take those activity involved with environmental research, virtually without exception they are highly pessimistic about the future unless corrective action is not commenced without delay.

mollwollfumble, has it ever occurred to you that it might be your remarkable lack of knowledge about environmental matters that is the reason you hold your current views. Not only me but all professionals involved in the environment are crying out for people in control to listen to them, yet we are continually demeaned and undermined by greedy vested interests and the ignorant. For God’s sake man open your bloody eyes and look around you. You say you have been to Indonesia, yet you learnt nothing, as you are so tired up in your little world and can’t be bothered looking elsewhere.

I admire your passion PF but try not to have a stroke worrying about a jumped to conclusion. Save your energy for those who are intentionally arsebags.

Postpocelipse said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t know which disturbs me more, that some alarmist ignoramus wrote that palm oil plantations threaten orang utans, or that tens of thousands of supposedly intelligent people parrot that statement without bothering to check its authenticity.

It occurred to me last night that parroting a statement without bothering to check its authenticity is a defining feature of religion. So my first question is:

When did environmentalism become a religion?

My second question is:

Is it fair to define a religion as: Charity + Propaganda?

My third question is:

By number of followers, how does environmentalism compare with other small religions?

————-

I note that environmentalism has already divided into several sects. For example, hard core environmentalists are opposed to the use of renewable resources – hydro, forestry, palm oil, etc.

What a load of cobblers!

People who are concerned about the environment have very good reason to be and if you take those activity involved with environmental research, virtually without exception they are highly pessimistic about the future unless corrective action is not commenced without delay.

mollwollfumble, has it ever occurred to you that it might be your remarkable lack of knowledge about environmental matters that is the reason you hold your current views. Not only me but all professionals involved in the environment are crying out for people in control to listen to them, yet we are continually demeaned and undermined by greedy vested interests and the ignorant. For God’s sake man open your bloody eyes and look around you. You say you have been to Indonesia, yet you learnt nothing, as you are so tired up in your little world and can’t be bothered looking elsewhere.

I admire your passion PF but try not to have a stroke worrying about a jumped to conclusion. Save your energy for those who are intentionally arsebags.

It is so frustrating when you look around and see what is happening, yet some are totally blind to it. As a young man I was also passionate about the environment and wished I had been around before so much of it was cleared and otherwise trashed, yet then I foolishly thought most of that destruction was in the past. However since that time there has been as much if not more destruction than ever there was. Now we have more of the big projects where environmental matters are downgraded or dismissed in favour of progress and profit, we now have the money and big machinery to do as we wish, but more importantly these people simply don’t care about the environment and are blind to the damage they do. Blind ignorance is as bad as dogmatic ideology and greed.

Bubblecar said:

This view is also supported by the United Nations Environment Programme, which stated in its 2007 report that due to illegal logging, fire and the extensive development of oil palm plantations, orangutans are endangered, and if the current trend continues, they will become extinct.

Wiki mirrors popular beliefs, and in this case does not provide a valid ref to that claim.

Actually, I think I have found the document the Wiki article refs for those claims.

http://www.grida.no/files/publications/orangutan-full.pdf

It makes claims, but does not actually back a lot of them up with facts. Example: Map on Page 29.

“Figure : Deforestation and plantation development in western Borneo.”

It is a nice map showing deforested areas as compared to ‘tang distribution. No mention of who made the map, when it was made, where the numbers came from, or palm oil plantations.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Bubblecar said:

This view is also supported by the United Nations Environment Programme, which stated in its 2007 report that due to illegal logging, fire and the extensive development of oil palm plantations, orangutans are endangered, and if the current trend continues, they will become extinct.

Wiki mirrors popular beliefs, and in this case does not provide a valid ref to that claim.

environmentalism has certainly become a religion for some, of that there is no doubt.

This article from Nyunggai Warren Mundine, July 2014, makes some valid observations.

RECENTLY I challenged Green groups to name one place in Australia where they would support a new mine and one place in Australia where they would support oil or gas exploration and processing.

The response was predictable. I’m still waiting for an answer. Meanwhile, Green groups published responses to my articles which were full of broad principles and motherhood statements but no specifics.

There was also the usual flurry of internet outrage. And what I found extraordinary is there are apparently educated individuals who have no idea that most of the items they use and rely on every day come from mining. It’s a bit like the person who buys meat from the supermarket and recoils when they hear of someone killing a cow.

Pretty much everything we touch relies on mined products — houses, cars, buses, trains, appliances, phones, technology equipment, plastics. As does the circuitry and microchip technology used in all sorts of things from ATMs, toys and pacemakers to running shoes and even in our pets. The food we eat is grown with fertilisers and harvested with machines.

Metals are mined. Plastics are made from petroleum or gas. Glass is made from silica and limestone. Many fertilisers are made from phosphate or potash. All these materials are ­extracted from the ground.

In the past few weeks some people suggested that renewable energy, the arts, education, the internet, tourism, phones and computers could exist without mining. Good luck with that.

Try putting on a theatre production without sound, stage, lighting, instruments, ticketing systems, all of which rely on mined products. Even the graphite in a student’s pencil is mined.

Renewables rely heavily on extractive industries. Wind turbines are made from materials like steel, aluminium and fibreglass, produced from glass and plastic. They also contain circuits and microchips and rare earth metals like neodymium. Solar panels contain silicon and have aluminium frames.

The internet is built with mined materials — network hardware, computer servers, cabling, circuitry, microchips, plastics. Phones and computers are made with rare earth metals, glass and plastics. Even two cans tied together with a piece of string uses mined products.

And manufacturing these materials and operating these items requires large amounts of energy.

There is a gaping hole in the policies and political agenda of the Greens. They are very clear about what they oppose. When will they nominate something they support?

They want more renewable energy. But will they support a rare earth metals mine or an aluminium smelter or an iron ore processing plant in Australia to manufacture the materials for turbines and solar panels? And if so, where? They claim to believe in a Green economy. But how exactly does this economy work?

When Greens or their supporters are pushed on these basic questions they either avoid answering or call people stupid. One blogger asked: “Does Mundine really expect us to ­believe that without mining there would be no technology, social media, phones? It’s ridiculous, beyond ridiculous, it’s crazy-talk you would expect to hear from some kid who has no idea in the playground after he’s been told by his parents to hate on greenies.”

We all laugh when we hear of a significant minority of Americans thinking the sun revolves around the Earth. But in Australia there seem to be people who think they could live a modern life independently of mined products.

No Australian could or would want to live without mined products. So why not tell people that? The Greens have no comeback.

Nyunggai Warren Mundine is managing director of NyunggaBlack and the executive chairman of the Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Actually, I think I have found the document the Wiki article refs for those claims.

http://www.grida.no/files/publications/orangutan-full.pdf

It makes claims, but does not actually back a lot of them up with facts. Example: Map on Page 29.

“Figure : Deforestation and plantation development in western Borneo.”

It is a nice map showing deforested areas as compared to ‘tang distribution. No mention of who made the map, when it was made, where the numbers came from, or palm oil plantations.

no doubt produced by an environmental group, so where there may be a pinch of truth, a lot of exageration will be thrown in.

The_observer said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Actually, I think I have found the document the Wiki article refs for those claims.

http://www.grida.no/files/publications/orangutan-full.pdf

It makes claims, but does not actually back a lot of them up with facts. Example: Map on Page 29.

“Figure : Deforestation and plantation development in western Borneo.”

It is a nice map showing deforested areas as compared to ‘tang distribution. No mention of who made the map, when it was made, where the numbers came from, or palm oil plantations.

no doubt produced by an environmental group, so where there may be a pinch of truth, a lot of exageration will be thrown in.

You are a bit prone to either exageration or not looking at all the facts yourself, TO.

Like PF, I was always into the environment and always have been horrified at the total lack of regard for our environment.
Sure we need mining, sure we need to level the odd hill, sure we need agriculture and logging but again we could show that we care for the environment along the way. Recycling is a joke in this country where everyone tosses everything out the window of the car. However, recycling is a way to reduce the effect of mining on the environment. Mining however is a minor player in deforestation and species decline. It is not logging as such either because this can be more sustainably managed but it is about what comes after logging and that is rip off the land as quickly as farming can and send the bad news downstream to the coral reefs and wetlands, to the food bowl of the world, the oceans.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Actually, I think I have found the document the Wiki article refs for those claims.

http://www.grida.no/files/publications/orangutan-full.pdf

It makes claims, but does not actually back a lot of them up with facts. Example: Map on Page 29.

“Figure : Deforestation and plantation development in western Borneo.”

It is a nice map showing deforested areas as compared to ‘tang distribution. No mention of who made the map, when it was made, where the numbers came from, or palm oil plantations.

no doubt produced by an environmental group, so where there may be a pinch of truth, a lot of exageration will be thrown in.

You are a bit prone to either exageration or not looking at all the facts yourself, TO.

your opinion!

Neither me or my family toss anything out the window, & we have a recycle bin supplied by the council, the same as every other person in this country.
Yeh, but some people do chuck the maccas wrappers out the window; slap on wrist.

Yes we do need to mine & log, full stop.
Yes, all care should be taken to make as little impact on the environment > as possible

As to my statement – “pinch of truth, a lot of exaggeration will be thrown in” just recall the IPCC’s statement “very high chance the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035”. Pachauri stridently defended the assertion. Pachauri, angrily defended the report’s conclusions about Himalayan glaciers after they were called “alarmist” by India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh.

Pachauri accused Ramesh of relying on “voodoo science”, called the minister “extremely arrogant” and said Ramesh’s claims were “not peer reviewed”

The claim was from a 2005 campaigning report from the environment group WWF. In turn, the WWF report’s only source was remarks made in 1999 by a leading Indian glaciologist, Syed Hasnain. Hasnain had never submitted the suggestion of such an early demise to a scientific journal because, he said, it had always been “speculative”.

Didn’t matter to WWF.

Just one example

It’s possible using the web to track this awful lie about palm oil and orang utans back to its original source. It first appeared in an article in the Economic Times newspaper in June 2008.

This article contains the approximately true statements that:
1) Palm oil farmers are a subset of farmers and loggers.
2) Some farmers and loggers consider orang utans to be a pest animal.
3) About 5,000 pest animals are killed by farmers and loggers each year.
4) There are about 50,000 wild orang utans.

As I said, all the above or true or approximately correct. The logic jump from that to claiming that palm oil could drive the orang utan extinct in 10 years is a blatant and malicious lie. If you can’t see the flaw in the logic there then you’re an idiot.

Let me add the extra data that is need to make even tentative conclusions.
5) The relevant area being logged is about 170,000 square kilometres. The relevant area under palm oil plantation is less than 500 square kilometres, a factor of 0.3%.
6) The number of animals sometimes considered pest animals (to be on the safe side limit this to mammals and reptiles) by farmers and loggers in the relevant area is what? It’s really difficult to calculate. I think a conservative estimate would be 10 million. 50,000 in ten million is 0.5%.

0.5% of 5,000 is a maximum of 25 orang utans killed by loggers and farmers each year, probably less than that because orang utans are now protected. 0.3% of 25 is 0.75 orang utans. So on average no more than 1 orang utan would be killed by palm oil farmers each year. This is certainly an over-estimate, as orang utans don’t even live in the same area as palm oil is grown.

Conclusion. To claim that palm oil threatens the survival of orang utan species is a malicious lie.

mollwollfumble said:

It’s possible using the web to track this awful lie about palm oil and orang utans back to its original source. It first appeared in an article in the Economic Times newspaper in June 2008.

This article contains the approximately true statements that:
1) Palm oil farmers are a subset of farmers and loggers.
2) Some farmers and loggers consider orang utans to be a pest animal.
3) About 5,000 pest animals are killed by farmers and loggers each year.
4) There are about 50,000 wild orang utans.

As I said, all the above or true or approximately correct. The logic jump from that to claiming that palm oil could drive the orang utan extinct in 10 years is a blatant and malicious lie. If you can’t see the flaw in the logic there then you’re an idiot.

Let me add the extra data that is need to make even tentative conclusions.
5) The relevant area being logged is about 170,000 square kilometres. The relevant area under palm oil plantation is less than 500 square kilometres, a factor of 0.3%.
6) The number of animals sometimes considered pest animals (to be on the safe side limit this to mammals and reptiles) by farmers and loggers in the relevant area is what? It’s really difficult to calculate. I think a conservative estimate would be 10 million. 50,000 in ten million is 0.5%.

0.5% of 5,000 is a maximum of 25 orang utans killed by loggers and farmers each year, probably less than that because orang utans are now protected. 0.3% of 25 is 0.75 orang utans. So on average no more than 1 orang utan would be killed by palm oil farmers each year. This is certainly an over-estimate, as orang utans don’t even live in the same area as palm oil is grown.

Conclusion. To claim that palm oil threatens the survival of orang utan species is a malicious lie.

let’s try some more recent stats
Deforestation for the establishment of palm oil plantations is responsible for habitat loss for threatened and endangered species. Priority species impacted by forest clearing are the Asian elephant, tiger, Sumatran rhinoceros and the orangutan. The Asian elephant and Bornean orangutan are endangered and the tiger, Sumatran rhinoceros and Sumatran orangutan are Critically Endangered.

During the past decade the orangutan population has decreased by approximately 50 percent in the wild. This is primarily due to human activities including rainforest destruction for palm oil plantations. At present, 80 percent of orangutan habitat has been altered or lost.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUNC) has classified the Bornean orangutan as Endangered with approximately 55,000 left with 5,000 killed a year. The Sumatran orangutan is Critically Endangered with approximately 6,300 left and 1,000 being killed a year.

http://www.orangutan.org.au/palm-oil

and a less one sided article still says it’s only just starting to change for the better, slowly.. now…

Are you optimistic about the orang-utans’ survival? The outlook is completely site-dependent. Some areas in Borneo are deforested on a very large scale; others are better protected. Overall, I would say that things are slowly getting better, mostly due to relatively good government support. In some places, the government has even increased the size of the protected areas. That’s not enough, but they are moving in a good direction.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029390.200-dont-demonise-palm-oil-to-save-orangutans.html#.U9BGUrHCb9s

Arts said:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029390.200-dont-demonise-palm-oil-to-save-orangutans.html#.U9BGUrHCb9s

Is there any truth to accusations of brutality levelled at the industry?

primatologist Isabelle Lackman

Environmental activists are sometimes ridiculous in the claims they make.
The anti-palm-oil lobby makes horrible claims that are obviously not true, like that the whole palm oil industry is evil and all the plantations are slaughtering baby orang-utans. That happens, but it is not everyone. But because it’s very emotional, and there are lots of gory pictures, it allows activists to use facts that are not verified.

The_observer said:

Arts said:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029390.200-dont-demonise-palm-oil-to-save-orangutans.html#.U9BGUrHCb9s

Is there any truth to accusations of brutality levelled at the industry?

primatologist Isabelle Lackman

Environmental activists are sometimes ridiculous in the claims they make.
The anti-palm-oil lobby makes horrible claims that are obviously not true, like that the whole palm oil industry is evil and all the plantations are slaughtering baby orang-utans. That happens, but it is not everyone. But because it’s very emotional, and there are lots of gory pictures, it allows activists to use facts that are not verified.

Sure there are environmental non-scientific activists that exaggerate and go for the emotional response, I have known a few and disliked them all. However other extremists are supporters of the fossil fuel industry, who not only know nothing about the environment, but don’t want to know. That’s right Observer, people like you!

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Arts said:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029390.200-dont-demonise-palm-oil-to-save-orangutans.html#.U9BGUrHCb9s

Is there any truth to accusations of brutality levelled at the industry?

primatologist Isabelle Lackman

Environmental activists are sometimes ridiculous in the claims they make.
The anti-palm-oil lobby makes horrible claims that are obviously not true, like that the whole palm oil industry is evil and all the plantations are slaughtering baby orang-utans. That happens, but it is not everyone. But because it’s very emotional, and there are lots of gory pictures, it allows activists to use facts that are not verified.

Sure there are environmental non-scientific activists that exaggerate and go for the emotional response, I have known a few and disliked them all. However other extremists are supporters of the fossil fuel industry, who not only know nothing about the environment, but don’t want to know. That’s right Observer, people like you!

No, I do know about the environment, I don’t support the fossil fuel industry any more than you do.

Yes, you exaggerate and are forever posting emotional tirades towards me.

Wouldn’t everyone be happier and get along if we just made oil from orangutans?

furious said:

Wouldn’t everyone be happier and get along if we just made oil from orangutans?

Americans would be a more efficient source.

furious said:

Wouldn’t everyone be happier and get along if we just made oil from orangutans?

baby orang-utans ?

The_observer said:

furious said:

Wouldn’t everyone be happier and get along if we just made oil from orangutans?

baby orang-utans ?

No. Fat ratio is too low.

oil from baby orang-utans ?

turns up hearing aid

eh?

Tamb said:

The_observer said:

furious said:

Wouldn’t everyone be happier and get along if we just made oil from orangutans?

baby orang-utans ?

No. Fat ratio is too low.

I call for tappping fat people. I’m sure they would be happy to be fitted with a bleed tap for a small percentage of energy profits……

Postpocelipse said:

Tamb said:

The_observer said:

baby orang-utans ?

No. Fat ratio is too low.

I call for tappping fat people. I’m sure they would be happy to be fitted with a bleed tap for a small percentage of energy profits……

would you cook with it?

Postpocelipse said:

Tamb said:

The_observer said:

baby orang-utans ?

No. Fat ratio is too low.

I call for tappping fat people. I’m sure they would be happy to be fitted with a bleed tap for a small percentage of energy profits……

Collect at walmart

easy

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Is there any truth to accusations of brutality levelled at the industry?

primatologist Isabelle Lackman

Environmental activists are sometimes ridiculous in the claims they make.
The anti-palm-oil lobby makes horrible claims that are obviously not true, like that the whole palm oil industry is evil and all the plantations are slaughtering baby orang-utans. That happens, but it is not everyone. But because it’s very emotional, and there are lots of gory pictures, it allows activists to use facts that are not verified.

Sure there are environmental non-scientific activists that exaggerate and go for the emotional response, I have known a few and disliked them all. However other extremists are supporters of the fossil fuel industry, who not only know nothing about the environment, but don’t want to know. That’s right Observer, people like you!

No, I do know about the environment, I don’t support the fossil fuel industry any more than you do.

Yes, you exaggerate and are forever posting emotional tirades towards me.

All your arguments are pro-fossil fuels, none favour the environment as you think, or would have us think that there is nothing wrong with the environment, therefore nothing should happen to reduce our co2 emissions. It is people like you who are the most environmentally destructive and to make it worse you do for nothing else but greed and/or self-justification of your greed.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

Tamb said:

No. Fat ratio is too low.

I call for tappping fat people. I’m sure they would be happy to be fitted with a bleed tap for a small percentage of energy profits……

would you cook with it?

Nah

Drive with it

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Sure there are environmental non-scientific activists that exaggerate and go for the emotional response, I have known a few and disliked them all. However other extremists are supporters of the fossil fuel industry, who not only know nothing about the environment, but don’t want to know. That’s right Observer, people like you!

No, I do know about the environment, I don’t support the fossil fuel industry any more than you do.

Yes, you exaggerate and are forever posting emotional tirades towards me.

All your arguments are pro-fossil fuels, none favour the environment as you think, or would have us think that there is nothing wrong with the environment, therefore nothing should happen to reduce our co2 emissions. It is people like you who are the most environmentally destructive and to make it worse you do for nothing else but greed and/or self-justification of your greed.

see what I mean, exaggerated, emotional, & ignorant

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

I call for tappping fat people. I’m sure they would be happy to be fitted with a bleed tap for a small percentage of energy profits……

would you cook with it?

Nah

Drive with it

common rail diesel then

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

would you cook with it?

Nah

Drive with it

common rail diesel then

No. The common rail is a very lean bird.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

No, I do know about the environment, I don’t support the fossil fuel industry any more than you do.

Yes, you exaggerate and are forever posting emotional tirades towards me.

All your arguments are pro-fossil fuels, none favour the environment as you think, or would have us think that there is nothing wrong with the environment, therefore nothing should happen to reduce our co2 emissions. It is people like you who are the most environmentally destructive and to make it worse you do for nothing else but greed and/or self-justification of your greed.

see what I mean, exaggerated, emotional, & ignorant

No it truthfully points to the person you are.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

All your arguments are pro-fossil fuels, none favour the environment as you think, or would have us think that there is nothing wrong with the environment, therefore nothing should happen to reduce our co2 emissions. It is people like you who are the most environmentally destructive and to make it worse you do for nothing else but greed and/or self-justification of your greed.

see what I mean, exaggerated, emotional, & ignorant

No it truthfully points to the person you are.

that’s just you opinion,

I’ll just point out that you insulted me when I tried to tell you that an El Nino & a La Nina cannot occur simultaneously.

thats’s the sort of arrogant dick you are.

Anyone one who disagrees with your view is stupid & evil.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

see what I mean, exaggerated, emotional, & ignorant

No it truthfully points to the person you are.

that’s just you opinion,

I’ll just point out that you insulted me when I tried to tell you that an El Nino & a La Nina cannot occur simultaneously.

thats’s the sort of arrogant dick you are.

Anyone one who disagrees with your view is stupid & evil.

and perv, read the Warren Mundine article above.

you support the fossile fuel & mining industry just as much as me & Lord Monchton,

you ignorant tosser

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

see what I mean, exaggerated, emotional, & ignorant

No it truthfully points to the person you are.

that’s just you opinion,

I’ll just point out that you insulted me when I tried to tell you that an El Nino & a La Nina cannot occur simultaneously.

thats’s the sort of arrogant dick you are.

Anyone one who disagrees with your view is stupid & evil.

Unlike you Observer I am human and do occasionally make mistakes, but you on the other hand NEVER do, you are ALWAYS right and are beyond opinion, circumstantial evidence and scientific fact. What does that make you?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

No it truthfully points to the person you are.

that’s just you opinion,

I’ll just point out that you insulted me when I tried to tell you that an El Nino & a La Nina cannot occur simultaneously.

thats’s the sort of arrogant dick you are.

Anyone one who disagrees with your view is stupid & evil.

Unlike you Observer I am human and do occasionally make mistakes, but you on the other hand NEVER do, you are ALWAYS right and are beyond opinion, circumstantial evidence and scientific fact. What does that make you?

your opinion has no effect on me.

You may as well save your self.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

No it truthfully points to the person you are.

that’s just you opinion,

I’ll just point out that you insulted me when I tried to tell you that an El Nino & a La Nina cannot occur simultaneously.

thats’s the sort of arrogant dick you are.

Anyone one who disagrees with your view is stupid & evil.

Unlike you Observer I am human and do occasionally make mistakes, but you on the other hand NEVER do, you are ALWAYS right and are beyond opinion, circumstantial evidence and scientific fact. What does that make you?

Irreproachable!!!! (a bit like monkey but with a degree of repressability).

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

No it truthfully points to the person you are.

that’s just you opinion,

I’ll just point out that you insulted me when I tried to tell you that an El Nino & a La Nina cannot occur simultaneously.

thats’s the sort of arrogant dick you are.

Anyone one who disagrees with your view is stupid & evil.

and perv, read the Warren Mundine article above.

you support the fossile fuel & mining industry just as much as me & Lord Monchton,

you ignorant tosser

No I don’t live in a cave, but that does not mean we have to destroy ourselves and much of the biota to order to satisfy the short-term greed of the few.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

No it truthfully points to the person you are.

that’s just you opinion,

I’ll just point out that you insulted me when I tried to tell you that an El Nino & a La Nina cannot occur simultaneously.

thats’s the sort of arrogant dick you are.

Anyone one who disagrees with your view is stupid & evil.

Unlike you Observer I am human and do occasionally make mistakes, but you on the other hand NEVER do, you are ALWAYS right and are beyond opinion, circumstantial evidence and scientific fact. What does that make you?

Funny, I can’t remember receiving the apology

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

that’s just you opinion,

I’ll just point out that you insulted me when I tried to tell you that an El Nino & a La Nina cannot occur simultaneously.

thats’s the sort of arrogant dick you are.

Anyone one who disagrees with your view is stupid & evil.

Unlike you Observer I am human and do occasionally make mistakes, but you on the other hand NEVER do, you are ALWAYS right and are beyond opinion, circumstantial evidence and scientific fact. What does that make you?

your opinion has no effect on me.

You may as well save your self.

I know it has no effect on you Observer, that is the problem. In fact nobody has any effect on you unless it is to the benefit of the fossil fuel industry.

Are we all being nice to one another in this thread?

Bubblecar said:

Are we all being nice to one another in this thread?

Not really!

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

Are we all being nice to one another in this thread?

Not really!

You’re not both getting emotional in this thread?

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

Are we all being nice to one another in this thread?

Not really!

I need a palm oil massage from an Orangutan…….

dirty little minkies they are anyway.

end outrageous french accent.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

Are we all being nice to one another in this thread?

Not really!

I need a palm oil massage from an Orangutan…….

Oil massages are good

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

Are we all being nice to one another in this thread?

Not really!

I need a palm oil massage from an Orangutan…….

a baby orang-utan?

Where does baby oil come from?

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Not really!

I need a palm oil massage from an Orangutan…….

a baby orang-utan?

Think that has already been covered Observer. But there again, you commonly rehash stuff that have been scientifically proven.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Where does baby oil come from?

don’t ask

CrazyNeutrino said:

Where does baby oil come from?

It’s squeezed from ripe babies.

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Where does baby oil come from?

It’s squeezed from ripe babies.

i stay away from ripe babies

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Not really!

I need a palm oil massage from an Orangutan…….

a baby orang-utan?

I’m no pervert!!! You aren’t one of those types that like visit Bali and Thailand are you?

They are playing some nice cello music on Classic FM

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

I need a palm oil massage from an Orangutan…….

a baby orang-utan?

I’m no pervert!!! You aren’t one of those types that like visit Bali and Thailand are you?

what sort of massage were you after?

Then one day, ‘Bluey’ Bugden rode into town,
and palm oil farming was never the same again
.
.
.

The_observer said:

Then one day, ‘Bluey’ Bugden rode into town,
and palm oil farming was never the same again
.
.
.

That’s a very good selfie Observer. Well done.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Then one day, ‘Bluey’ Bugden rode into town,
and palm oil farming was never the same again
.
.
.

That’s a very good selfie Observer. Well done.

here’s a photo I took of you earlier perv

The_observer said:

here’s a photo I took of you earlier perv

Monkeybootylicious!

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Then one day, ‘Bluey’ Bugden rode into town,
and palm oil farming was never the same again
.
.
.

That’s a very good selfie Observer. Well done.

here’s a photo I took of you earlier perv

We make a good pair. :)