Whats the point??

Is anyone out there interested in participating in more focused discussions? On topics of a prescribed scope. Perhaps moderated. For those who are PRO-environment. Possibly a new usenet group(s) or maybe another forum altogether.

I'm pro-environment. I have worked as an environmental chemist for almost 20 years.

I do not know if global warming is occurring.

I reject the pre-cautionary principle on the grounds that we do not know what risks will be incurring by its use.

I beleive in survival of the fittest in ideas. ( a darwinian idea universe as it were)

Chris, I think this is a good idea, although I don't know how you'd implement it. Maybe there needs to be a moderated news group?

It seems pretty clear that a large number of the people posting to this 'Talk environment' group are in fact people who are interesting in talking AGAINST the environment. Somehow, there should be some way that environmentalists can fix this, and keep people who hate our goals and ideas from using every opportunity to disrupt us.

Please define what you mean by 'pro-environment.' Is it your intention to eliminate viewpoints with which you disagree? Would you like a forum restricted to people who swallow whole the sort of institutional disinformation with which 'Psalm 110' floods this group? Or do you have some objective criterion by which you propose to divide the posters into 'pro-environment' and 'anti-environment' clusters? Needless to say, I consider myself very much pro-environment. Unfortunately, I'm handicapped by an advanced degree and three decades of study of the subject, which I understand disqualifies me from being called an 'environmentalist.'

Ok....all those that are AGAINST the environment please raise your hand. No one is against the environment.

Some people just don't buy into all the hysteria that is so rampant in these newsgroups.

There will be no moderated news group. Use self-control to refrain from posting 'talk' to 'science' groups, and use your killfile if you're intolerant of dissent. Ponder this: what does the term 'eco-fascist' refer to?

The Forest Service competes against private timber suppliers by providing many tax-payer subsidized benefits to Natl Forest clearcutters. The large lots mean that individuals are cut out of the auction process: only 'barons' need apply. The cost per tree at auction is often equal to the cost per retail 2'x4'x8' board at retail, i.e., $2 per tree. My brother had 80 acres of mixed land, needed some mature trees thinned for fencing. Sold the trees for average $800 each tree, or what FS gets for an acre of sticks at auction.

Obviously, nobody pays $800 when $2 trees are on the market. Except that big mature trees are getting scarce and one good tree can give you lumber for half a house.

There, is that environmental enough for you?

I don't believe that's an accurate assessment. I've addressed critical comments to self-described 'environmentalists,' and I could reasonably be said to have chipped away at some of the more uninformed assertions of various 'pro-environmentalists.' But I don't believe you can point to anything I've posted that undermines, or was intended to undermine, a 'pro-environmental' position.

LOL! You don't need me for that! Nobody here seems to have a problem perceiving the weaknesses in their position. On the other hand, stuff of an equivalent level of credibility is just gobbled down when it promotes the orthodox 'environmentalist' line. So not only is it more fun to deflate the latter posts, it is more productive if one's objective is to promote awareness of error that might otherwise go undetected.

Well, of course it might. How about left.environment? Old boys' clubs of that sort always have a certain appeal