print“Be it warming or cooling, the goal is the same: climate kooks want to scale back the market economy that is responsible for the magnificent living standards enjoyed in industrialized countries.
To accomplish this unchanging ambition, these mutant Marxists have had to create a theory that can’t be falsified—the kind of ‘theory’ Karl Popper referred to as irrefutable. As Popper reminded us, ‘A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is,’ of course, ‘non-scientific.’
Thus evidence that contradicts the global warming theory, climate kooks enlist as evidence for the correctness of their theory; every permutation in weather patterns—warm or cold—is said to be a consequence of that warming or proof of it.
Then again, a leap of faith is necessary if one is to sustain a belief that the specimen that designed the microchip and painted the Mona Lisa is no better than a monkey—a creature that has never created anything, lives in trees, throws coconuts, and hoots to communicate.”
More about the environmental animists and their media enablers, in my new WorldNetDaily column, “Reincarnation of the Reds.”
Updated: This via Drudge: “Record snowfall buries Anchorage, Alaska.” To which the environmental animist will reply that “every permutation in weather patterns—warm or cold—is… a consequence of that warming or proof of it.” As I said, theirs is a theory that can’t be disproved, which is why it’s junk science.
What a bunch of baloney. We’re surrounded by over-educated fools who have no spiritual anchor in their lives so they make up their spiritual roots according to whichever crack pot movement that sounded good to some
other lost genius. [I’m not sure why you think the non-systematic thinking eco-idiots evince is evidence of genius] Man, left to his own devices, is not only totally wicked but also totally stupid. [Are you saying we need government to prevent a descent into stupidity?]
Has anyone checked whether the fluctuating hysteria has anything to do with the “industrial complexes,” how they push their agenda under the cloak of “sensitivity to social issues?”
Libertarians provide quite a striking perspective on this: It is not only reds or greens who hate laissez faire; quite a few are capitalists themselves. Competition is relentless.
Rothbard, among others, has observed that since the State is the ultimate (in fact, the only) monopoly, oligarchical interests wanting to eliminate competition, and thereby to cartellize markets, frequently provide significant aid to movements and policy proposals they know will fortify their position.
Example: Wal-Mart supported raising the minimum wage, not to stop critics breathing on its neck but knowing that the raise would hurt the competition more since Wal-Mart was paying those rates anyway.
It may be worth considering that the Tokyo accord, for instance, were it put into effect, could easily destroy and eliminate the competition in many sectors for Western multinationals from underdeveloped or developing countries.
Regulation is the name of the game in creating cartels, and the best way to do it is to use the Trojan horse we fondly know as the Left.
Great article, as usual. The fact that the same sources currently warning us of the non-stop heat wave were only recently warning us of the non-stop ice box speaks volumes about the scientific merit (or lack thereof) supporting their claims.
You take your criticism of these crazies a step further than I generally have, and it’s a step closer to the truth. I always thought that environmental doomsayers were just people who like to worry – earthly hypochondriacs, if you will. However, it is true that any so-called medicine to combat global warming must entail government coercion and a limiting of freedom. Well done.
I work as an actuary in the insurance industry (exciting, eh?). [Challenging, certainly] One difficulty in our work is separating out true underlying changes in loss trends versus expected changes. A 10% rise in the cost of claims in a year may sound alarming, but is less so when one considers the long-run average increase of, say, 7%. Likewise, a few heat waves may alarm the kooks, but a few heat waves are not at all unusual in the history of the world. But hey, since when have these people let facts get in the way of their opinions?
As a lover of nature myself, what I find offensive about the Greens and their “love of nature” is that it’s phoney.
Nature is indeed beautiful – and terrible as well, like all things of sublime beauty. Astronomy, geology and paeleontology have revealed that the universe is a place of unimaginable violence and that most species that ever lived – have died.
The Greens have made nature warm and fuzzy. And the primitives they idealize know damn well that ain’t true.
With respect, I believe that it is more accurate to say that primitives placate nature, rather than worship it. An attitude far removed from the Judaic commandment to love God and keep his laws. The former views nature as chaotic and malign, the latter that nature is subject to laws made by a rational being. They may both be myths – but which is more likely to lead to a technological civilization?
In the same tradition, the notion that Man was given mastery over the earth, so offensive to Greens, implies that we are responsible for it. By contrast, the Asian idea that we are all part of nature that they so admire, is just as likely to lead to the attitude of, “If we’re part of it, we have as much right to use it up as any other species.”
Your attractiveness is, of course, undeniable. Bravo on “Reincarnation of the Reds.” When you write like that you only add to your admiration quotient. I especially love the last (for some, but not me, cringe inducing) paragraph. This is the quality of writing your fans have come to expect. [Thanks]
As always, you have wrote another thought-provoking article.
Along the same lines, on Tuesday, Dec. 26th, The History Channel broadcast a show called, “Last Days on Earth.”
http://www.history.com/schedule.do?action=daily&start=1167181200000&end=1167186600000
In it, they named the top seven ways in which the world as we know it could end.
Can you guess the number one way the world could end?
Yep, you guessed it, global warming.
…I will pause to let the feeling of a shiver going down your spine to pass…
And who is to blame for global warning according to that show? The ‘evil’ industrial nations of the West (especially the U.S.), and the internal combustion engines that are flooding the atmosphere with CO2. What was not mentioned is the massive deforestation that is occurring in places like India, China and South America. Excuse me, Ilana, but I think I was taught in the 4th grade that plants, like trees, remove CO2. So, wouldn’t make sense that when forests are eliminated it too would contribute to a rise in CO2 levels? I don’t know, I guess it was not discussed in depth because when I was in the 4th grade, the media & ‘scientists’ were screaming about the coming Ice Age due to global cooling.
Of course, the show paraded the global warming poster boy, former VP Al ‘I invented the Internet’ Gore, in front of the camera to sprout his propaganda. The one line he said that got to me was something along the line, “The U.S. has to show the moral leadership in the global warming ‘crisis.’ By the U.S.’s example, China and India will follow along.”
Yeah…right!
Two countries that if combined have almost 7 times the population of the U.S. are going to look to us for ‘moral’ leadership. Hey, Al, what reality are you living in? Those two countries are going to do whatever it takes to prosper/dominate their regions of the world. I am certain that any cutback in consumption of resources by the U.S. will be looked at by those countries as, ‘Good! That means more for us.’ All I have to say to the environmentalists out there is this, “Hey, tree-huggers! What are the differences between U.S. coal-firing power plants and China coal-firing power plants? The ones in the U.S. are more efficient and less polluting!”
Wow! That venting felt great! Thank you, Ilana for the great article you wrote on 12/29/06, and thank you for the opportunity to get some of my frustrations vented. I expected better from The History Channel, maybe they should change their name to, ‘The Re-Writing History Channel’.
Wish I had the reference in front of me. However, someone has done extensive research to show that modern day Greenies are also descendents of the Puritans. While they may have given up the Christian God for other gods, they continue to see the world as a set of rules, made by them.
I don’t doubt that man’s industrial societies may have affects on weather. But I don’t put much stock into environmentalist’s predictions because of their atrocious track record.
But there is merit to some environmental precautions. The fisheries industry is one example where we’ve literally seen “teeming billions” of food resources sharply decline – various fish, lobsters, etc. I don’t know if there is any way around this problem though.
The fact remains that technological advancements have permitted humans to affect nature more dramatically than ever before. [Is this why the more technologically developed a country is, the better its air and water quality?] His oil spills, non bio-degradable products, and toxins will eventually come back to haunt him. But I see this as the natural course of things.
Mercer, Mercer, Mercer. I will translate for you:
1) Genius = “Self appointed genius.”
2) You ought to know that I, of all people, would never recommend government to prevent a descent into stupidity. Government has made stupidity an art form. Man left to his own devices is man with no spiritual anchor to which to attach his knowledge. The love of God is the beginning of wisdom. The fool hates God and evidence of this is his foolish
There are some questions I’d like to ask Al Gore and his fellow travelers among the environmental scientist poseurs that blame global warming on man.
No one can dispute that the earth has repeatedly warmed after Ice Ages in the past.
No one is claiming that those Ice Ages and the subsequent warming periods were caused by man’s activities since man obviously wasn’t a significant presence in the past.
Therefore, what evidence do you have that this warming period, if it is indeed occurring, is not 100% caused by the same factor(s) that were the entire cause of the former warming periods?
What evidence do you have that this warming period is unique in the history of the earth and has a new cause–man?
Do you even know what factor(s) were the cause of earlier warming periods?
If so, how did you conclude that they are not relevant today?
What evidence do you have that a gas (carbon dioxide) that is responsible for only about 2% of the green house gas effect (water vapor is responsible for 97% of the greenhouse gas effect) could ever be a significant factor in global temperature change?
What evidence do you have that a gas that represents much, much less than one part per thousand in the atmosphere could ever be a significant factor in global temperature change?
In both the scientific community and Western Civilization is there any reason not to view you as worse than a vandal scribbling graffiti on the walls? The vandal at least runs from the scene of the crime when the authorities come.
The fraud that these intellectual savages are attempting to perpetrate with the aid of a complicit and lazy press is especially offensive to me. They are the modern kin at least in spirit to the priest in Mel Gibson’s “Apocalypto” and the Vandals who helped destroy the Roman Empire ushering in the dark ages.
The Reincarnation of the Reds reminds me
of Michael Gorbachev being admitted to
the U.S. and starting his “Green Cross
International”. His website speaks for
itself: http://www.gci/ch/en/about/
mission/htm
[Is this why the more technologically developed a country is, the better its air and water quality?]
Unfortunately for me I don’t know enough about air or water quality to respond authoritatively. If what you say is true, I’d assume much of it has to do with sanitation and treatment regulations.
Maybe I should have said that some forms of basic technology are more earth and human-friendly than others. When you have one of the largest fresh water bodies on earth (Lake Erie) that used to catch fire because the level of pollution in it, you have to concede that certain levels of by-prodcuts produced by some technologies may not be for the best, in the long run, if not handled differently.
When technologically primitive Native Indians roamed North American plains, was the air and water quality poorer than it is now?