The following is excerpted from Chapter 10 of my book.
Environmentalism, with its attendant army of politicos all armed to the teeth with environmental laws, is, let us make no mistake, the highroad to hell.
Before going all the way green, I urge you to take a longer look into exactly what horse you’re backing here: it may well turn out to be a horse of an entirely different color than you think.
Environmentalism is a philosophy that upholds a profound hatred of humankind:
“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs” (John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal).
“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth” (president of PETA and environmental activist Ingrid Newkirk).
“If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species…. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental” (Ibid).
Quoting Richard Conniff, in the pages of Audubon magazine (September, 1990): “Among environmentalists sharing two or three beers, the notion is quite common that if only some calamity could wipe out the entire human race, other species might once again have a chance.”
Environmental theorist Christopher Manes (writing under the nom-de-guerre Miss Ann Thropy): “If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to ecological sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS.”
Environmental guru “Reverend” Thomas Berry, proclaims that “humans are an affliction of the world, its demonic presence. We are the violators of Earth’s most sacred aspects.”
A speaker at one of Earth First!’s little cult gatherings: “Optimal human population: zero.”
“Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as ‘disease’ (e.g., malaria) and ‘pests’ (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere … [We have] an antipathy to ‘progress’ and ‘technology.’ We can accept the pejoratives of ‘Luddite’ and ‘Neanderthal’ with pride…. There is no hope for reform of industrial empire…. We humans have become a disease: the Humanpox” (Dave Foreman, past head of Earth First!)
“Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line we … became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth…. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” (Biologist David Graber, “Mother Nature as a Hothouse Flower” Los Angles Times Book Review).
“The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!'”(Paul Taylor, “Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics”).
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is possible under capitalism” (Judi Bari, of Earth First!).
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (Maurice Strong, Earth Summit 91).
David Brower, former head of the Sierra Club and founder of Friends of the Earth, calls for developers to be “shot with tranquilizer guns.”
Why?
“Human suffering is much less important than the suffering of the planet,” he explains.
Also from the socialist Sierra Club: “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
Quoting the Green Party’s first Presidential candidate Barry Commoner:
“Nothing less than a change in the political and social system, including revision of the Constitution, is necessary to save the country from destroying the natural environment…. Capitalism is the earth’s number one enemy.”
From Barry Commoner again:
“Environmental pollution is a sign of major incompatibility between our system of production and the environmental system that supports it. [The socialist way is better because] the theory of socialist economics does not appear to require that growth should continue indefinitely.”
So much for your unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed:
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” (Harvey Ruvin, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Dade County Florida).
Sierra Club cofounder David Brower, pushing for his own brand of eugenics:
“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
That, if you don’t know, is limited government environmentalist style.
“There’s nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write history” (Sierra Club board member Paul Watson).
Again from Paul Watson, writing in that propaganda rag Earth First! Journal: “Right now we’re in the early stages of World War III…. It’s the war to save the planet. The environmental movement doesn’t have many deserters and has a high level of recruitment. Eventually there will be open war.”
And:
“By every means necessary we will bring this and every other empire down! Mutiny and sabotage in defense of Mother Earth!”
Lisa Force, another Sierra Club board member and quondam coordinator of the Center for Biological Diversity, advocates “prying ranchers and their livestock from federal lands. In 2000 and 2003, [Sierra] sued the U.S. Department of the Interior to force ranching families out of the Mojave National Preserve. These ranchers actually owned grazing rights to the preserve; some families had been raising cattle there for over a century. No matter. Using the Endangered Species Act and citing the supposed loss of ‘endangered tortoise habitat,’ the Club was able to force the ranchers out” (quoted from Navigator magazine).
It is a sad fact for environmentalists that in free societies, humans are allowed to trade freely.
Among other things, the right to private property means: that which you produce is yours by right.
Private property is the crux of freedom: you cannot, in any meaningful sense, be said to be free if you are not allowed to use the things that you own, including those things necessary to sustain your life. Everything you need to know about a political ideology is contained in its attitude toward property.
It comes as no surprise therefore to learn that “private property,” in the words of one environmental group, “is just a sacred cow” (Greater Yellowstone Report, Greater Yellowstone Coalition.)
That is also known as socialism.
In 1990, a man named Benjamin Cone Jr. inherited 7,200 acres of land in Pender County, North Carolina. He proceeded to plant chuffa and rye for wild turkeys; he conducted controlled burns on his property to improve the habitat for deer and quail. And he succeeded: in no time, that habitat flourished. Inadvertently, however, he attracted a number of red-cockaded woodpeckers, a species listed as endangered. He was warned by a certain governmental agency that, on threat of imprisonment or stiff fines, he was not allowed to disturb any of these trees, which were all on his property. This put 1,560 acres of his own land off-limits to him, the owner. In response, Benjamin Cone Jr. began clear-cutting the rest of his land, saying: “I cannot afford to let those woodpeckers take over the rest of my property. I’m going to start massive clear-cutting.” (Richard L. Stroup, Eco-nomics p. 56-57.)
Socialist Eric Schlosser, author of the embarrassing Fast Food Nation, makes no secret of his statist agenda. As Doctor Thomas DiLorenzo points out, Schlosser lauds the “scientific socialists” (a generic term coined by comrade V.I. Lenin) and everything they stand for: government intervention and bureaucracy, public works, job-destroying minimum wage laws, OSHA regulations, food regulations, regulatory agencies to control ranching, farming, and supermarkets, bans on advertising and much more. Only then, he says, will that great day come when restaurants exclusively sell “free-range, organic, grass-fed hamburgers” (Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal).
All of which is simply by way of saying that individual consumers should not be allowed to choose what we want to eat, and that the supply of free-range hamburgers should not be determined by demand. Rather, by law, government bureaucrats must do this for us, regardless of whether we personally want to eat organic, grass-fed beef.
Colorado congressman Scott McInnis confessed that four firefighters burned to death in Washington state because bureaucrats took 10 hours to approve a water drop. The reason: using local river water is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act, on the grounds that it may threaten a certain kind of trout.
Further proof of the Sierra’s hatred of humanity can be found in their 1995 attempt to block an Animas River water diversion project, which project was designed to bring water to Durango and the nearby Ute Indian Reservation.
Dams and irrigation are often life-and-death matters in the arid west, a fact of which Sierra is well aware. Thus, after successfully getting the project slashed by more than 70 percent, thereby depriving the Ute Reservation of much-needed water, the Sierra Club lawyers went for the jugular: they demanded the project be cut still more.
Fortunately for the rest of us, they overplayed their hand.
Their shady methods and motives prompted the following quote from Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell:
“The enviros have never been interested in a compromise. They just simply want to stop development and growth. And the way you do that in the West is to stop water.”
From a chairwoman of the Ute Indian tribe: “The environmentalists don’t seem to care how we live.”
Greenpeace is worldwide the largest and wealthiest environmental group. Of their co-founder Dave McTaggart, fellow co-founder Paul Watson said this:
“The secret to David McTaggart’s success is the secret to Greenpeace’s success: It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth, and a myth-generating machine.”
And since rather than addressing the actual data, environmentalists believe that citing the source of funding is the only argument one ever needs to refute a counterargument, environmentalists should be extraordinarily persuaded by this very partial list of Greenpeace’s funding.
Most people have no inkling that throughout Greenpeace’s tireless campaign against “Frakenfood” (i.e. biotech food – “Frakenfood” is a word coined by Greenpeace campaign director Charles Margulisto, who hates technology), the Third World has steadily perished from malnutrition and famine, as a direct result thereof.
Quoting Tanzania’s Doctor Michael Mbwille (of the non-profit Food Security Network):
“Greenpeace prints and circulates lies faster than the Code Red virus infected the world’s computers. If we were to apply Greenpeace’s scientifically illiterate standards [for soybeans] universally, there would be nothing left on our tables.”
(For an example of how to successfully expose Greenpeace’s lies, please read this relevant article.)
Candidly, I haven’t even begun.
And yet from this small sampling, you can probably get an idea of what an exceptionally gracious and non-politically motivated folk these environmentalists and environmental leaders are. Indeed, environmentalism is a benevolent and life-affirming philosophy, and the people who populate it are a kind, non-violent people, whose reasoning is sound and scrupulous, and who believe unreservedly in the individual’s inalienable right to life and property.
There is of course only one real problem with all that: these people are hypocrites, and environmentalism worships at the shrine of death.
The entire movement, replete, as it is, with its politicos and environmental politics, is not simply “wrong.” That would be too easy.
The environmental movement is criminal.
Reader, if you have even a vestigial love of freedom within you, you must denounce environmentalism with all your heart. You must see it for what it actually is: a statist philosophy of human-hatred and enslavement.
Environmentalism is neo-Marxism at its blackest.
49 Comments
CrisisMaven
February 20, 2010Well, but the statist has to get hisfundsfrom somewhere. Eventuallythese dry up and the state goes bankrupt.
Charles
February 20, 2010Ray Harvey–
There are may, many positive reviews of Fast Food Nation and your analysis of it is sophomoric at best. (I’d fail your ass in my Comp class.) Schlosser is interested in fast food as a metaphor, not just a product. The damn thing was on the New York Times bestseller list for months. And The Jungle, by the way, is considered a masterpiece and has never gone out of print. So you can say what you want about these works, but you’re just back to your old tricks of name calling and arse licking.
Kelly Laubach
February 20, 2010Ray Harvey:
I’ve been asked to write this on behalf of a number of people who, for the last month, have been reading your articles, with a kind of horror. We are troubled, not because what you say doesn’t contain truth (it may or may not), but because in your reckless abandon, you’re missing the over-arcing point, which is this: the survival of our planet.
As a social movement, environmentalism is perhaps guilty of many of the sins you accuse it of. But we need not throw the baby out with the bath water. Unless action is taken immediately, our civilization will crash upon its greedy head – it may not die off, but it will certainly be turned upside down – all because we never considered another way to live: sustainably. In short, our knowledge, and not our ignorance, will lead to our demise. That is our concern.
You write a lot about energy. There are endless facts and opinions about energy coming from many different sides. People want to choose sides and shout and fight about resources — usually in an effort to protect to the death the system that supports their way of life — but our desire is to push the argument beyond ‘them versus us.’ In thinking about the case for further energy development and use — what you call the desire to ‘seize and capture and consume,’ as much of the energy of this finite world as possible, whether from wind or sunlight, coal or uranium — I have to shake my head and laugh. It’s as if we’ve left behind the endlessly becoming question of How to Live Better. Imagine a world in which energy is no longer an issue, a world in which we could leave all of our lights on, crank the air conditioning, even leave the refrigerator door open all day long. Do you think this would make us happier? Would unlimited power make you a better person? This version of reality sounds, to many of us, like hell. It sounds like hell because in such a world, we lose sight of our true desire: A graceful life, a life full of integrity and joy, being kind, and respectful of other creatures. The Third World Countries didn’t know they were poor until we told them so.
BedazzledCrone
February 20, 2010Charles:
The Celestine Prophecy was on the bestseller list for 165 weeks – this proves what???
Dale
February 20, 2010Ray, I heard a report last week that, under the guise of environmentalism, Obama’s Interior Department is evaluating 16 million acres of public land to be designated off limits to any development. This is similar to what Clinton did when he made the only low-sulphur coal deposits in the U.S. off-limits (in Utah). I’m sure this had nothing to do with a FoB that controlled Indonesian low sulphur coal deposits.
So, Obama intends to single-handedly steal 16 million acres rich with oil and natural gas resources, bypassing the Congress and against the will of the American people. Follow in Bill’s footsteps.
The “global warming” debate involved skeptics challenging the political action (heavy taxes) based on phony science (IPCC) of zealots making claims boasting feel-good dogma,rooted in political agenda, and disguised as “the right thing” to “save mankind” and “save the planet”.
Obama’s intentions for our 16 million acres wear the shroud of “caring” and “protecting”, too. But, this is political action that will harm America and further erode our ability to achieve energy independence. It is the insidious political strategy – avoid the debate and simply dictate – that destroys trust and polarizes the debate (or lack thereof). If you challenge the political action, you will be declared a person who would murder the planet.
In other words, environmentalism, in this case, lacks “integrity” or “being kind, and respectful of other creatures”. That is, if the American people “deserve respect”. This is the “bath water” of environmentalism: political action based on some facts, but thick with prejudices and phony selective “science”.
Take, for example, the implied tenet that Ray disrespects our environment: he must toss garbage out his window, and accelerate towards any creature that strays into the road, and I’ll bet his car burns oil, probably on purpose.
The truth is, Ray expresses an opinion supported by facts and a consistent philosophy. I know him well enough to say I’m certain he cares about our environment and its creatures as much as anyone, and the tenet above is false. Until “environmentalists” can respect folks like Ray, we will cumulatively drown the baby in the bath water. Debate the facts and make your point – which is what Ray is doing – before concluding Ray misses the “over-arcing point” – which he doesn’t.
What Climategate confirmed is that AGW, IPCC, Cap and Trade, and all the Chicken Little’s were political activists, not scientists. AGW is but one aspect of environmentalism; the political tactics are the same in other aspects. It is a kind of malignant cancer.
To save the baby, we need more of the kind of discussion Ray provides. If he’s wrong, call him on it point by point, and support your position. This is called debate. Ray appears ever-ready to engage, and his positions are based on research.
In my opinion, the problem with environmentalists is the U.S. Constitution. Enviros want to create a pristine environment by force of government, and at the loss of individual rights and freedom.
Ray, I think, would promote personal responsibility, that we each do all we can to conserve, clean, recycle, etc. I guarantee environmentalist Al Gore pollutes – by orders of magnitude – more than Ray Harvey. Which of them is personally responsible for the environment around them? We don’t want to end environmentalism, we want it to be reasoned and practical teamwork by the American people, not the zealous political action of totalitarian government.
In a way, I agree Ray’s articles can be horrifying, but for a different reason. I don’t question his understanding of the big picture; I’m horrified at the kind of things the facts indicate. Except WD-40, of course.
Ray
February 20, 2010I predict you will bewilder him with that question, Bedazzled, even as he beclowns himself with vulgarities and non arguments.
Denny
February 21, 2010Kelly Laubach
February 20th, 2010 at 9:18 am,
Kelly, since a “large Majority” here on Planet Earth believes they LIKE living here, they are living their lives according to there beliefs…As time goes on, more and more fallicies are found in the AGW, political, money hoarding agenda…Science in it’s OWN terms is “never” in consensus as Environmentalists believe and portray. New Science in Climate Research is finding out that CO2 isn’t the cause…The “Realists” side is starting to be told and uncovering lies, inaccuracies and deceit. Yes, temps are going up but at hundreds of a degree…IMO and many others, Climate Change is what it is, Climate Changing in reference of ten, hundreds, thousands and millions of years in cycles of Earth’s time….I invite you if you are sincere about caring to read this article…
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1969.post
Again, if you have no interest on the basis of “real Science” don’t read it!
Sad that AGW has to “suck” Science in this field down to a level that may not recover…Belief system will be tarnished…It will take time…
Kelly, open your eyes, if you are not a “true Alarmist” and read about the Realist side of this issue…It’s falling apart at the seams…If you don’t want to inquire about this then there’s NO hope for you…You WILL go down with the Alarmists…
Truth and Honesty will prevail…
Ray, I see what you mean!!! Thanks for the heads up! I will try to come here more often…The Global Warming issue and my issue is keeping me occupide…Doe Marshepp come here???
Marshep
February 21, 2010I’m around, Denny, thanks for asking. I’ve been swamped at work, including some travel, so rarely comment on the blog. I do still enjoy Ray’s articles when time allows, and, of course, have a signed copy of More and More Unto the Perfect Day.
Dave Cochrane
February 21, 2010@ Kelly: “Unless action is taken immediately, our civilization will crash upon its greedy head.”
Oh fuck off.
Redmond
February 21, 2010Hi Kelly
“The Third World Countries didn’t know they were poor until we told them so.”
Is that a joke? Is that really what environmentalists think? No wonder they don’t feel guilty paying $150 for pants from lululemon that were made in a third world country. As long as the poor don’t see how we live they won’t mind having their children dying before the age of 5 and women dying in childbirth, going blind due to poor nutrition, and generally being at the mercy of the elements. So here is your vision of the world, Europe and the West drive electric Porches while the third world starves. Sounds great – that certainly is my vision of utopia.
I am guessing you are upper middle class, live in a suburb, or right downtown, have a college education that was paid for by your parents and live on the west coast.
So is that your solution to poverty in your own city/state/country? Don’t let them see me in my Beamer and expensive clothing?
That is one of the most horribly selfish attitudes I have encountered in a long time, but since I have begun discussing these issues with friends who hold similar views as yourself, I have noticed an incredible amount of self righteous hypocrisy. Much as I hear it from you.
“caring deeply” for the earth gives you an excuse to ignore the suffering going on around you – all for the greater good, is what I am sure you think.
The poor know they are poor because they see the rich in their own countries. They didn’t need us in the west to tell them that. In every society there is always an upper caste of elites exploiting the weak. I am guessing you consider yourself part of the intelligencia.
And why were you picked to demonstrate the horror of your compatriots to Ray? Can’t they form their own thoughts? Express themselves? I’d like to hear their take on this.
By the way feel free to visit my blogs, drawersofwater.wordpress.com and Wittenbergchurchdoor.wordpress.com
I’d be really interested to hear your opinion of my views, and only hope that you would consider them as horrible as Rays.
Best regards
Ross
February 21, 2010Ray, you have so much to say but you take so long to say it. I am truly intrigued, who are you, what is your living, are you just a government plant? Seriously, I wish I had your drive, I wish I cared that much. I will dip in to your musings from time to time or maybe I will wait for the movie.
Donovan Cloer
February 21, 2010I’m with Kelly Laubach. Ray Harvey’s “articles” (like this one) makes so many illogical manuevers that I cannot begin to assess them all here, but here is one. A. Some enivronmentalists are on the fringe, so therefore the entire environmental movement is wrong.(Oh, no, PERHAPS IT’S LED BY OTHER ECO-TERRORISTS.) This is like saying that becasue Glen Beck is a freak, all right-wingers are freaks. Maybe that’s a bad example. Here, how about this–-Governor Palin of Alaska in the pocket of big oil companies, therefore all Alaskans are willing to sell off our public lands to the highest bidders. You could do this with an infinite number of examples. It’s faulty logic. You do the same with all your implications (here and elsewhere) about Environmentalism being a religion. It is not, I’d argue. For one, many of the concepts in the environmetal movement emerged from sceinece, (peer reviewed science), (not so with religion) and many of the leaders of this movement became inspired when they saw their own farms, neighborhoods and communities being changed for the worst. I’m not willing to call it religion–it’s actually awareness that I would call it. But call it what you want, I guess, it’s your blog.
I just wonder why you’re so down on environmentalism when there’s so many other things out there to be angry at. For example, I rarely see you people getting after the Right Wing which really is a religion and has parked the U.S. military in Third World nations all over the world. Write about that once, for fuck sake.
SteveH
February 21, 2010It’s ironic to me that environmentalists cite so much supposed scientific data to support their cause, and then turn around and ignore the scientists that have done the studies that brought about the misquoted, misunderstood, and fantastically promoted data as interpreted by non-scientist laymen. Yes, the earth is heating up. In fact, the entire universe is heating up. This is obviously because people own Hummers, right? I mean, by environmental logic this must be true. Of course, it isn’t true, and neither are all the scare tactics environmentalists keep using to “shock” people into taking up their cause.
The fact of the matter is that things are heating up. It’s happened before. Things also got really cold one time too, perhaps you’ve heard of it? We call it The Ice Age. You see, just as the earth as seasons so too does it have natural temperature cycles. This is what science is telling us, and this is what environmentalists refuse to acknowledge.
You don’t get to pick and choose the facts. This is reality, not church. There is factual data that says that our contribution to greenhouse gases accounts for less than 1% and no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, your beliefs are meaningless in the face of scientific data.
Should we be more responsible? Yes. Are we all going to die if China has an industrial revolution in the same vein as every other developed country? Absolutely not. My opinion is simply that we should be more responsible simply due to the amount of chemicals in the water, cancer on the rise, and other things that have started to happen due to us being lazy. But do I think there is going to be some cataclysmic catastrophe because people drive cars? No. NOTHING supports this case except extremist environmentalists that have infected the mainstream with the same sort of fear that the Bush administration infected us with nine years ago.
Use your brains, Donvovan, do your research. The internet is the largest compilation of knowledge humankind has ever known – use it.
Redmond
February 21, 2010Wow Donovan,
You should do some research, it sounds to me like you think environmentalism started in the 1970’s. Not the late 19th century.
http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2010/01/a-brief-history-of-environmentalism/
And it’s worship of the earth certainly is a religion, you might want to check out Wittenbergchurchdoor.wordpress.com it is a blog that is focussing on greens as religious zealots, which they are.
I am also guessing that you think people such as ehrlich, holdren and hansen are still deserve respect for their outrageously misanthropic and Malthusian views that have been discredited time and time again.
And please don’t ever use the words “peer-reviewed” again, it makes Al Gores ears bleed.
Best regards.
Dale
February 21, 2010When “the environmental movement” possesses concrete evidence and its conduct exemplifies integrity, it will have a unified following.
As long as its prejudices deny access to venues like nuclear energy and fuel reprocessing, it is dogmatic.
As long as it attacks the motives, conduct, or intelligence of skeptics, it is stubbornly intolerant.
As long as it’s based on government funding rather than profitable enterprise, it is impractical.
As long as foreign oil is ok and domestic oil is off-limits, it is bad economic and national security policy.
As long as its goal is government-enforced eco-extremism, it is political corruption.
Spare us the effete narcissism that presumes an environmentalist’s superiority in intellect and compassion, and that caring for the environment is a thing of liberalism. Liberal environmentalists – like liberals in general – are for three things: more government, more government spending, and more taxes. The environment is just a tool, and will be no better when you are done “improving” it this way.
Abandon your force-of-government tactics, disavow the frauds that soil your cause, move to an open-minded free market approach, and you’ll find conservatives are willing partners to understand our climate and act to preserve and improve it.
Donovan Cloer
February 22, 2010Wow Redmond,
You should do some research instead of plug you brand new website and make wrong guesses about me. No, I don’t like Paul Erlich. No, I don’t like John Holdren. No, I don’t like James Hansen. You eat crow. Now what?
Donovan Cloer
February 22, 2010Dale, nuclear energy sucks at the government tit even more than you and Redmond and Ray and all the other energy sources combined.
Pardon me. I’m still working on finding out whether or not Thoruea was a racist. I’ll let you know what I find. This internet thing isn’t really working for me. I mean, I’m so lazy that I often actually read books. I know that the internet is the single-most contribution to mankind beside language, art and math, but it’s just too hard for me to right click all day long as you and your freedom-loving followers do. I’ll keep trying. I look forward to hearing from you all about how much of a hero Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh are.
SteveH
February 22, 2010I’m sure it is difficult for you Donovan. Books seem good for you. Nice and simple. Open cover – read. No real research, alternate points of view, or up-to-date information to deal with. I mean, that stuff is so boring right? Why not read books about a subject that changes by the day so that by the time it’s published it’s completely out of date, and so that you can change the subject constantly.
Good job Donovan. You sure showed me the error of my ways.
Redmond
February 22, 2010Hi Donovan
I will agree, plugging my website was a bit tacky, I am still new to this whole blogging ettiquette thing. But I did honestly think you would be interested in it.
Speaking of which, you seem to have some strong opinions, why don’t you start a website? I would be interested to see some if your book learning put to use!
So apart from that I would like to hear why you think I have eaten crow. You only stated your dislike for ehrlich, holdren and hansen, which I share. As for assuming things, would it interest you to know that I think Beck works for the CIA and Rush is a hypocritical drug addict? So there you go, two things we have in common.
I thought if a third one, I like books too, and have a small libray of my own. So we both have a love of knowledge, a fourth thing. It seems to me we aren’t that different, you and I.
So back to my other points, what goals can you point to in the environmental movement that aren’t based on some kind of warped desire to return to a fantastical pre-industrial world where humans live in “harmony” with nature. Such as lovelocks Gaia theory. I wonder if they might try to use “peer review” to support their personal prejudices.
Speaking of making Al Gores ears bleed, can you point to some peer reviewed dendrochronological studies supporting the idea that the medieval warm period was not a global phenomenon that haven’t been discredited?
I await your reply
Best regards.
Dale
February 22, 2010“Environmentalism” is a liberal agenda designed to help create totalitarian government. This has not been disputed; instead, it is justified by attacking radio talk show hosts.
This is an example of the liberals’ effete narcissism mentioned before. Rather than admit that the AGW scare is a hoax and look for ways to team up for the environment, liberals attack individuals they disagree with. The goal is to change the subject and pretend you won the debate, but there was no debate. There was setting forth of facts (e.g. environmentalism is a political agenda to expand government power), followed by a rebuttal made up of personal insults and subject-changing attacks.
How typical.
Ray, you had some good articles on nuclear power and fuel reprocessing. Perhaps link(s) here would be helpful.
EJ
February 23, 2010Charles, Kelly and Donivan.
Kelly, you write of horror. Do you think it would be more horrific to outlaw driving or dictate health care?
As an engineer tasked with mitigating the impacts of construction activities, I have it down to a science!
Kelly, can you even define the scientific method without looking it up? Do you know what a partial differential equations is?
All one has to do is visit http://www.ecofascism.com/index.html to get an idea of the history that Ray summarized, quite well I might add, here.
One only needs to take differential equations to see that computer models can’t see a century into the future.
One only needs to realize that spending trillions trying to change 3 parts per every 100,000 parts of our atmosphere is fruitless, when a forest fire will do the same thing. When a volcano will do thousands of times more.
One only needs to demand hard data. If you do, many of your favorite environmental myths will evaporate.
Of course most recent graduates, like Kelly, have no clue about the maths or the natural sciences. And thus can’t think for themselves. Until they can, this kind of dialogue is mining a dry vein.
EJ
Donovan Cloer
February 23, 2010Thanks SteveH.
The past couple of years, I’ve been using most of my out-of-date books to smash pine beetles up here in the Rockies, God’s Country. You see, with the rise in global temps due to greenhouse gas, these little bastards (beetles) have extended their range over the last few years and they’re threatening the white pine forests. They turn the trees an ugly rust color. These beetles, man, they’re really doing a number on the environment thanks to the rapid change in temps. Check em out on-line if you don’t trust me; there’s even pictures.
The problem is, though, if you lose much of the white pines, you lose the moths that live in the pines, moths which the grizzlies feed on all summer. (I’m not one of those who wants to be consumed by a grizzly by the way. I want to go the normal way, say a massive stroke or prostate cancer.) But when you begin messing with the mega-fauna you begin to see people get emotional. There’s going to be some serious uproar up here if we don’t get a handle on this beetles. I’m doing my part, though, smashing pine beetles with a dog-eared copy of Great Expectations, that you can be sure of.
Ray
February 23, 2010Click-click
Click-click
Click-click
SteveH
February 23, 2010Dog-earring books isn’t very respectful to such great works, Donovan. That’s why I like my copy of Great Expectations in PDF format. That way it doesn’t get bug-guts on it, you know?
What I’m curious about is what your precious little beetles and moths did during the Ice Age? You know, the last time there was a major -natural- shift in the temperature of the Earth? Or do you believe that because we -didn’t- drive Hummers back then, the Ice Age was also the fault of humans?
You see Donovan, there is this thing we like to call evolution. This means to adapt to the climate as it changes. Evolution occurs in hostile environments – mostly you can see it happening in the world of the virus right now because at that level the climate is still quite hostile. Evolution implies by it’s very existence that the Earth is a hostile and changing place – survival of the fittest doesn’t just apply to a lion chasing a gazelle – it also applies to those that can adapt fast enough to endure the next change in their environment.
By this line of reasoning you can see that it is logical to expect the Earth to change. It does so slowly. Just because we haven’t seen a huge change in the 3,000 years or so we’ve been writing things down doesn’t mean that in the billions of years the Earth has been around it hasn’t changed quite drastically.
It’s only human arrogance that causes one to think otherwise.
Redmond
February 23, 2010Three cheers for Steve, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
“four legs good, two legs bad” man Orwell didn’t know how right he was – he was taking on ecofascism with that book as well and didn’t even know it.
Further to steves point that all “change is bad”, I expanded on that point in a conversation on facebook. I think it is pertinent
and references ice ages – the real inconvienient truth that we are overdue for.
Message below.
———————
That was the genius of changing “Global Warming” to “climate change”, apart from the fact tha the globe has cooled since 1998, means that any change in the global climate from a base point – let’s say 1980, is unnatural and caused by human activity. I can think of a completely natural process that again is amoral, but most likely would seriously disrupt life on this planet, and that humans would classify as bad – an ice age. I wonder, if at some future date, it were to be conclusively proven that the globe was warming, and that it was completely natural, do you think that environmentalists would try and stop any attempt at man interveneing in the climate to stop the warming? Especially if it was “catastrophic”? Or if a new ice age was upon us, would they try to thwart any attempt to keep the planet warm? It makes you wonder what their true motives are, and in whose interest they are acting.
Dale
February 23, 2010“It makes you wonder what their true motives are, and in whose interest they are acting.” Way too easy. Their true motive is totalitarian government, and they are acting in the interest of their being in control of that government.
About pine beetles: a horrific natural infliction. We stayed up near Winter Park a couple years ago, and were appalled by the enormous amount of beetle kill forest. A man in Grand Lake explained how the lodge pole pine cone will not open and disgorge its seeds unless it has been exposed to extreme heat. In other words, the forest grows, beetles kill it, it burns, which release the lodge pole seeds, and the forest is renewed. The natural cycle.
If the beetles are spreading, it is likely as much due to humans trying to prevent the [natural] burn cycle. Another example of good intentions having negative results? I wonder how much CO2 was released in the last cycle, especially compared to us normal humans (i.e. excluding Mr. Billowing-Cloud Gore).
I suppose this is progress. We got a specific anecdote rather than another attack on Beck, as if he has anything to do with this. Unfortunately, we can’t have real teamwork until liberal supporters accept the fact that AGW, IPCC, Al Gore, Cap and Trade, etc. are frauds and liars that cannot be trusted, and should be held accountable for their contributions to a criminal hoax (oh yes, we would be hurt by their actions – Cap and Trade – and that is crime). What we need to see is vitriolic liberalism applied to the AGW perpetrators; something like hitting them over the head with a hockey stick. Oh, and quit using the environment as an excuse to create totalitarian government.
Redmond
February 23, 2010And regarding evolution, I have some more from that same facebook exchange that I think elaborated on and supports steves argument.
@Steve – i would be interested in conversing with you further on this subject – you can reach me at fpwuat@gmail.com, or just comment on my blog.
@Donovan – how is that research on dendrochronological studies coming?
———————-
As for what animals and plants will do in the face of the “problem” of global warming, my guess is that will do what they have always done – adapt. Much like humans. In fact humans are very succesful at adaptation. We are so succesuful that we have extended our presence into every concievable part of this earth and into the cold darkness of outer space.
Let’s say that the inanimate and chaotic features of our earth such as warming, cooling, tectonic plates shifting, volcanoes, etc is the problem, then life itself is the solution to the problem. Life has been confronted with the problem of surviving every since it appeared on this earth. Life solves this problem through adapting via evolution. Humans are the product of this evolution, and so by extension everything we do is natural, and part of life. You might say that humans are the pinnacle of this evolution for we are the rational animal. We have the capacity for rational thought, and can weigh our options and make decisions. We place value on life. No other animal does this. Given that the problem is survival, humans therefore are the best chance that life has to survive in this universe. As far as we know, this planet holds the only life in the universe, and it could be snuffed out in an instant by something such as a planet killing asteroid. Humans are the only animal that would be capable of defending life from oblivion.
BedazzledCrone
February 24, 2010Except that evolution is not about “survival of the fittest”. Evolution is about chance – errors in the transmission of alleles. Errors happen all the time in DNA. If those errors are adaptive, that is, help to promote survival of the organism, then they are generally passed on to the next generation through reproduction. If they are not adaptive, then the organism with that particular error tends not to reproduce. A genetic error can be highly adaptive in a particular environment, but be deadly when the organism is moved to another environment. This is the case, for example, with sickle cell anemia – highly adaptive where it originated in malaria infested areas of Africa, deadly when people with this genetic code were forcibly moved to the United States. In other words, in Africa they were the “fittest”, in North America, they were the “weakest”.
This notion of “survival of the fittest” is a social construct that should not be used to describe how humans adapt to their environments. Humans adapt because of their ability to be technologically innovative. Opposable thumbs, bipedalism, cranial development, for example, were all evolutionary “errors” that made homo sapiens the creatures we are today. And our ability to think, create and change our environment have made it the case that survival is possible for the weakest of our species. This is particularly true of medical advancements. We adapt because we can think beyond the present – we can envision different possibilities. Our history is one of constant change, of meeting new challenges.
To take this to the issue of the blog, the creation of “moral panics” around the environment shows an extreme lack of faith in humans’ ability to find solutions to problems that may be occurring in the world around us. Misanthropy is a good phrase to describe them. I just wish that these people who spend so much time “defending the earth” would give as some thought to fixing poverty and violence towards other human beings. Those are problems that desperately need solutions and they are created by humans – “mother nature” has shown a remarkable ability to take care of itself.
Donovan Cloer
February 24, 2010“Donovan – how is that research on dendrochronological studies coming?”
Good Redmond. I’m about to shove a tree ring up your ass.
SteveH and Dale: those were some good points you made except for one thing: they weren’t. But at least you made them without calling anyone a habitual jerk-off.
Bravo.
Redmond
February 24, 2010Hi Donovan
No need to resort to threats of violence – as I proved above, we should be friends!
But seriously, the dendrochronological studies are a big deal – if the medieval warm period was warmer that it was today, and Phil Jones admitted as much just a week or two ago –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/
it means that every “problem” that you describing has happened before, and it all worked out just fine – after all we are all here aren’t we? So are the moths and bears and pine beetles. So what exactly is the “Problem”?
I think the problem is that the environmental movements basic philosophy is “Four legs good, two legs bad”. And therefore absolutely anything Humans do is by its very nature a negative impact on the planet – that is why they want less of us.
So moving on, why don’t you refute some of points instead using threats and insults?
Best regards
Your Friend,
Redmond
Redmond
February 24, 2010Hi Bedazzled Crone
Nice Straw Man – read my post again, no-where did I say “Survival of the Fittest”
You try to attack my point by claiming I was using a social construct – actually I was just talking about adaptation.
Our two post agree with each other, I am just saying that through the random chance of evolution, humans have evolved to become the best at adaptation, and therefore survival. We have come to a point where we have transcended the daily struggle just to survive – environmentalists don’t like that.
And don’t think for a minute that life isn’t about competition, because it is ALL about competition.
Job, Spouse, anything you can think of involves competition of some sort.
Except maybe those “Job for Life” Government jobs – but I guess you do have to get one first – probably through some sort of “competition”.
And animals are competing with one another constantly, some have, through evolution, found niches that they exploit where they don’t have much competition from other animals, but then they are usually competing with other member of their owns species for such things as breeding rights, food, etc. But then they have to watch out that they don’t get eaten.
As Hobbes would put it, life in the natural world can be “nasty, brutish, and short”
Random Chance gives all life various tools with which they can adapt and compete for a larger share of the resources, and the chance to pass on their genes.
Speaking of the forcibly moved Africans – what about the Africans who come here of their own volition? Should we give them a little pamphlet advising them of the risks to them associated with living in North America? The African Canadians I know do just fine…
And yes the EcoFascists are Misanthropists, and Malthusians, and I would argue that their deep seated “Love of the Planet” and hatred of humanity, makes it all to easy for them not to care about the poorest among us – in fact you will often hear them celebrating poverty – sort of like The Nazis celebrating the Volk and the ideal of the farmer – Lebensraum and all that. Plus they are perfectly fine with children ding before the age of 5 and adults with a lifespan of 35 – so much more “Natural” and in harmony with nature.
Evironmentalism and Eugenics come out of the same philosophical roots – all this late 19th century psuedo-scientific BS. And now we have a new generation of “Scientists” and “Prophets” trying to twist science to support their belief system – the CAGWers and Warmists – James Hansen, Al Gore et al.
BedazzledCrone
February 24, 2010Actually, Redmond, I wasn’t commenting on your post. I should have made that clear. Sorry about that. This is the post that I was referencing.
STEVE: You see Donovan, there is this thing we like to call evolution. This means to adapt to the climate as it changes. Evolution occurs in hostile environments – mostly you can see it happening in the world of the virus right now because at that level the climate is still quite hostile. Evolution implies by it’s very existence that the Earth is a hostile and changing place – survival of the fittest doesn’t just apply to a lion chasing a gazelle – it also applies to those that can adapt fast enough to endure the next change in their environment.
BedazzledCrone
February 24, 2010Redmond:
Great minds think alike – at least to some extent (never forget the second half of that quote). I don’t happen to believe that all life is about competition. I think that this view of competition is part of the accepted way of thinking that has created the mess that the world is in today.
I had one of those nice government jobs once upon a time – things just didn’t quite work out. Life does get in the way.
As for Africans that come here voluntarily, that was not any part of the point that I was making. I was talking about environmental adaptation vis-a-vis sickle cell anemia. The fact that there is less and less of it among the African American population in the United States is partly due to the fact that it is deadly when its adaptive function (survival in malaria-infested areas) is not part of the environment.
Dale
February 24, 2010Great minds?
Ray
February 24, 2010Suspicious minds?
BedazzledCrone
February 25, 2010a little Elvis anyone? I’d embed a video clip, but that would just be tooooooooooo much
Dale – the end of the quote “but fools seldom differ” just in case you forgot
Dale
February 25, 2010Just checking.
Ray
February 25, 2010BedazzledCrone: never enough, until my heart stops beating.
Redmond
February 25, 2010Elvis has the best sideburns EVER!
EJ
February 25, 2010I guess no one is going to refute my three main points above.
“One only needs to take differential equations to see that computer models can’t see a century into the future.
One only needs to realize that spending trillions trying to change 3 parts per every 100,000 parts of our atmosphere is fruitless, when a forest fire will do the same thing. When a volcano will do thousands of times more.
One only needs to demand hard data. If you do, many of your favorite environmental myths will evaporate.”
We are thus agreed on these assertions?
BedazzledCrone
February 25, 2010Ray: was the link always there? I was going to embed a different one.
Sorry EJ, I think we got sidetracked by the sideburns – blame Ray!
No, I don’t see any reason to refute your 3 points. I don’t think that many people have a clue about how “models” work. They think that a computer model tells the “truth”. How can a computer model lie? It’s a machine. Most people seem to forget that people create the models and people put the data into the models – computers are not rational, objective things – we are not yet in the world of The Terminator – and those computers weren’t rational, objective things – they were “right some jesus pissed off” (excuse my Maritimes roots).
Generally speaking, people are so in awe of the Academy, that they never question the scientists (or other academics). There is data, then there is the interpretation of data, which is where most of the problem lies. Then of course, there is the deliberate falsification and deliberate misinterpretation of data.
Ray
February 26, 2010The link indeed was always there.
WastedEnergy
March 15, 2010It’s important not to take things to extremes. And you and the other peak oil deniers need to brush up on your Hubbert.
http://wastedenergy.net/2010/03/01/sustainability-is-the-most-abused-word-in-the-english-language/
Ray
March 16, 2010Okay. Right after you and the other tree-huggers brush up on your von Mises. Deal?
[…] […]
[…] They opposed capitalism — or what they called “economic materialism” — sexual repression, military force, and all the other usual suspects. […]
[…] They opposed capitalism — or what they called “economic materialism” — sexual repression, military force, and all the other usual suspects. […]
[…] ever since 1976, when the nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island melted down. Naturally, because environmentalists can’t be bothered by facts, it went completely unnoticed that the containment vessel at Three […]
[…] These quotes go on and on and on (and on). […]
Leave A Response