Environmentalists - my theory.

Sounds like you are talking about yourself there.....seek help

Is that you Pat Sajak? What is your stance on Evolution?

I didn't know Rush Limbaugh had an account on IMDB.

As for the global warming "myth", it's not a myth, it's just not what the media and cattle would have you believe. They are busy pointing fingers at each other when in fact it's a natural occurrence every few hundred and even thousands of years due to solar cycles. Literally everything that happens on this planet happens naturally through some cyclical event in relation to our Sun.

It's amazing how there are 7 billion morons on this planet worshiping some sort of god or deity when in fact they should be waking up every morning giving praise to our Sun for providing all complex life as we know it, because without the Sun we do not exist. There's no other way to look at it.

Our Sun giveth and our Sun taketh away.

High Their!

Right, then how do you explain all the extreme droughts and insane storms.
Show me the numbers, with the facts, when GHG was ever this high, show me the numbers and facts when the average temperature was ever this high.
You are either sheep (and stupid) or get your money (in)directly from GHG

Cas,

I used to be a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and I got into it because an old gf of mine convinced me. We went together for about eight years.

I noticed that she, and nearly all of the vegetarians we met, came from divorced families where there was a lot of conflict. I began to see that these people saw animals as a version of themselves, innocent tortured creatures. They would get very angry at people who ate meat and saw them as abusers.

That means it wasn't about the animals at all, but rather about a covert way to complain about unhappiness.

I believe that's the same thing you're saying about environmentalists. I stopped being a vegetarian because I believe eating meat is nature and not torture. However, I'm still not for certain very cruel practices and won't eat what they produce.

My point is that some points are based on mental problems these people have while other points are good.

Environmentalism:

I'm old enough to recall a toxic waste problem in a town called Love Canal. Greedy rich people who owned a company dumped toxic waste in the ground and it was killing, mutating, people. I haven't heard about a case like that in a long time, and that's due to people being concerned about the environment.

I don't see the need to wipe animals off the face of the Earth and make them go extinct over minor benefits to capitalism. Like, we don't need infinite beaver hats at the risk of killing every beaver in North America.

There's been environmentalists who are rational, see that some humans are greedy, and want to stop them destroying some resource, or just the natual surroundings.

I find that hard to argue with. For me, it's a case by case basis to see who is crazy and who isn't.

If you had done "years of dedicated research" you would have noticed the facts contradict every single one of your assertions. Even your assertions contradict each other, if environmentalists are 'bright' why would their failing exams be inevitable?

I understand that it is impossible for you to comprehend why someone would have a problem with a socio-economic system that is killing the planet's capacity to support life, it's because deep down you (not so) secretly hate life, and so indirectly go about that goal by defending a system which is doing it's best to exterminate life on earth.

Go read the IPCC reports and refute all that data.

I think climate change deniers can't accept the fact that their way of life is contributing to a terrible environmental problem. It is a psychological defense mechanism.

[deleted]