Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Better late than never  |
Once again, this article is a steaming pile of crap. He rambles on an on in a pretentious tone for over 3700 words and the only place where he brings up ‘facts’ that even remotely relate to environmental science are the three paragraphs that
Superbelt quoted and refuted. My favorite paragraph was:
Quote:
|
I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.
|
You had over 3700 words in this article. Maybe if you cut some of your BS from it you could have fit some of it in. It reminds me of Tom Cruise's infamous interview with Matt Lauer (I've read the research Matt!).
It’s just disingenuous to attack an idea by focusing on the extremes. By doing so, you never get to the heart of the arguement. If that is all you can do you really don’t have much of an argument. The fact is that environmental science has allowed us to repair lands that at the time were completely unusable. It’s also brought about huge changes in pollution prevention, fuel efficiency, and has greatly improved our health. These are facts that cannot be dismissed, notice he didn’t mention any of this.
Basically, this article was porn for the people that would prefer we let the Earth rot in favor of profits.