Proselytizing The Global Warming Religion

[The Lawspeaker]

And:

Belief in climate catastrophism is a religion, not a science, and the people pushing it are extremely cynical. In this video I expose the spectacular climate misinformation told by James Cameron and Sigourney Weaver at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

[Teutone]

Climate change is something completly natural, yes it will have negative AND POSITIVE effects like it always had.


Neverless I dont see anything bad about renewable energies and I am an active supporter of enviorment protection laws.

Naturschutz ist Heimatschutz.

[The Lawspeaker]

Naturschutz ist Heimatschutz.

I agree totally.Care for the environment is a good thing (personally, I'd like to give the maintenance to local farmers and other communities as well as to a forestry commission) but fear of global warming is complete tosh.

[frankhammer]

I absolutely would not trust the care of the local environment to a farmer or anyone else who profits from the land.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Global warming is a farse. The desertification of productive lands in tropical countries is a natural process, it isn't a problem for europeans, they don't buy food from tropical countries, they will not die of famine because of it, with a global warming, siberian lands will become more productives and europeans love buy things from Russia, like gas, now also food, with more money Russia will just become more powerful, and they will just decide if europeans eat or not, a new Holodomor.

[The Lawspeaker]

If global warming is actually taking place, we will soon be able to set up vineyards in Drenthe and Friesland. Today ? You wouldn't make it past the Rivers with that stuff. Still 120 km south of where it used to be possible during the Mediaeval Warm Period.

[The Lawspeaker]

I absolutely would not trust the care of the local environment to a farmer or anyone else who profits from the land.

I would. Here most land has been in the hands of the same families for generations. Why should I want give it to the same institution (the State) that has now wrecked the country with multiculturalism and can't even run a budget ?

[frankhammer]

I would. Here most land has been in the hands of the same families for generations. Why should I want give it to the same institution (the State) that has now wrecked the country with multiculturalism and can't even run a budget ?

The Dutch ecological model certainly isn't something I'd like to see used anywhere else. Is there anywhere natural left in the Netherlands? There needs to be mechanisms in place that regulate the land, water and catchment and whether one likes it or not, the State is best placed to deliver that.

[The Lawspeaker]

The Dutch ecological model certainly isn't something I'd like to see used anywhere else. Is there anywhere natural left in the Netherlands? There needs to be mechanisms in place that regulate the land, water and catchment and whether one likes it or not, the State is best placed to deliver that.

We actually have a lot but not thanks to the government but thanks to organisations like Stichting Natuurmonumenten which is a private foundation that bought up f.i the Naardermeer when it was about to be turned into a rubbish dump in the early 1900s. The nobility and farmers also protected their estates. What the State has done, is actually the opposite: nobody now really cares for the natural parks so you end up with situations like the Oostvaardersplassen where 1000s of wildlife died because there was no food around. It is mainly farmers and voluntary organisations like Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap and their local variants as well as the local waterschappen who do the most maintaining the landscape. As for government institutions like Staatsbosbeheer or even the municipalities ? Well.. scandal after scandal after scandal. Often to sell the wood for biofuels or to make extra money or to build roads that nobody needs (like widening the Scheveningseweg in Den Haag or ramming a beltway through Amersfoort's forests on its southern flank). The trees that have been "harvested" are then sold to the highest bidder as "biofuel". With their record ? The government is just about the very last institution that I would want to give control over the environment or land management.

[frankhammer]

We actually have a lot but not thanks to the government but thanks to organisations like Stichting Natuurmonumenten which is a private foundation that bought up f.i the Naardermeer when it was about to be turned into a rubbish dump in the early 1900s. The nobility and farmers also protected their estates. What the State has done, is actually the opposite: nobody now really cares for the natural parks so you end up with situations like the Oostvaardersplassen where 1000s of wildlife died because there was no food around. It is mainly farmers and voluntary organisations like Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap and their local variants as well as the local waterschappen who do the most maintaining the landscape. As for government institutions like Staatsbosbeheer or even the municipalities ? Well.. scandal after scandal after scandal. Often to sell the wood for biofuels or to make extra money or to build roads that nobody needs (like widening the Scheveningseweg in Den Haag or ramming a beltway through Amersfoort's forests on its southern flank). The trees that have been "harvested" are then sold to the highest bidder as "biofuel". With their record ? The government is just about the very last institution that I would want to give control over the environment or land management.

That is apalling behaviour. Harvested for biofuel...

This is what was introduced here almost 30 years ago. It's not perfect but it is evolving constantly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resour...ement_Act_1991

There's much an article in Wikipedia can't elaborate upon but it has had a positive effect.