Bullying is not new and takes many forms. Over the last thirty years small groups and individual environmentalists have bullied from the moral pulpit of environmentalism. With false sermons and threats of damnation, they’ve scared people into believing and acting on falsehoods.
Consider the outrageous statement James Lovelock, a hero of environmentalism with his Gaia hypothesis, made in 2007: “Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic.” He now says he was wrong, but the damage is done. It was an outrageous statement for anyone, let alone a well known scientist. It’s akin to shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
It's time to hold the enviro-bullies accountable for the damage they've done, from the distortion of facts to the destruction of the laudable philosophy of environmentalism." They viciously attacked the few, like Patrick Moore co-founder of Greenpeace, who realized what was wrong with the science.
Many in Canada have lost jobs, homes, communities, businesses, even political careers because of the unnecessary policies enviro-bullies forced. Billions of dollars were and are still being wasted on activities triggered by false claims about CO2.
Ontario residents recently learned they’ll pay an average $285 million more every year for the next 20 years for electricity to offset losses on an alternative energy program. Maurice Strong, as head of Ontario Hydro created the green energy program. David Suzuki vigorously advocated the plan. He and his foundation also supported another of Strong’s creations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which created the false CO2 science that triggered most of the unnecessary policies. Environment Canada employees were directly involved and the agency spent over $6 billion in five years on useless climate change programs at the expense of pollution reduction targets.
Fishing was forced into decline, from cod on the east coast to salmon on the west coast. Forestry suffered similar attacks and declines. These are renewable resources in no danger. All that was required to protect these resources were better scientific understanding of population dynamics and proper management.
But it became unlikely because bureaucracies filled with graduates of environmental studies programs from the 1970s on. Aware or not, they are products of the underlying anti-humanity of environmentalism. The Club of Rome’s 1974 comment that “the Earth has a cancer and the cancer is Man” was the underlying philosophy of their education. David Suzuki apparently said that “Education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism.” He’s correct, but few have done more to suppress skepticism about environmental and climate science.
Over the last 40 years many environmental stories had false but definitive headlines. Conditional words such as, ‘could’ and ‘maybe’ were usually in the story, but it’s the unconditional headlines that stick. Eventually the stories were proved incorrect, but reported without headlines, if at all. Sheep and rabbits going blind in Chile because of thinning ozone was a good example. Later, scientists at Johns Hopkins showed it was due to a local infection. We were told human pollution was causing frogs to be born deformed, until biologist Stan Sessions showed it was due to a parasite.
Enviro-bullying was exported to the developing world as Paul Driessen explained in Eco-imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring falsely blamed DDT for many things including thinner eggshells. By banning DDT we condemned millions to death in Africa from malaria.
Environmentalism was a new and necessary paradigm, but it quickly became a religion and political vehicle for extremists crying wolf. They bullied us from an usurped environmental pulpit claiming only they care about the environment, the children, the planet and the future. How dare they? With blind faith enviro-bullies, deceived, misdirected, threatened, destroyed jobs, careers, opportunities and development. Now those who paid the price are less willing to listen or support efforts to address genuine environmental concerns.
Dr. Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba. This article was first published by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Canada.
NZ's Greens get an absolute FREE RIDE from our media. Stupid Kiwis, and journalists are the most stupid of the lot, expect first world spending on education and health and welfare, but think resources can be left in the ground and economic progress halted. No-one is more utterly stupid and irrational about all this as the Greenies themselves - none of them ever talk about cuts in anything except "consumerism"; yet even the consumerism helps pay for the other niceties.
Wealth is created by 1) using natural resources, and 2) using natural resources more intelligently. Anything else is wealth consumption and wealth transfer.
The Greens are opposed to 1) and mostly opposed to 2), yet expect GOVERNMENT spending to RISE. They also rave on about sustainable economies where everyone catches trains to work in concrete jungles.....DUH. As if jobs in concrete jungles can possibly comprise an "economy" without actual wealth being created somewhere over the horizon in yukky mines and drilling rigs. Definitely an item of evidence for post-rational decadence in our civilisation; all the worse because nobody is "calling" them on this obvious rot. Further obvious rot, is that mankind is "paving over paradise"; this, in a age when we have Google Earth with which to assure us that this most emphatically ain't SO.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall, all those Western Communists quietly became "environmentalists."
"Green" Parties worldwide soon turned into watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.
Communists are expert at creating or colonising movements whose ostensible purpose attracts the support of respectable people, while covertly advancing the socialist agenda.
Meanwhile, the handful of Communists pulling the strings sit back, while a raft of those whom Lenin referred to as "useful idiots" do the work for them.
Who could be against "preserving the natural environment for future generations"?
But who is allegedly responsible for degrading it? "Greedy" Big Business and "selfish" private property owners.
What is the "Green" solution? State or supra-national control of everything. What is that? Socialism!
The UN from the moment of its inception has always seen itself as a world government in the making. The underlying agenda of its "environmentalism" is to create a global welfare state in which the rich [allegedly polluting] countries are compulsorily soaked to transfer their earned wealth to the corrupt, lazy, poor countries who comprise the majority of its member states.
"Going green has failed everywhere. It’s a major factor in European economic collapse as energy costs soar. "
The economy is a subset of the worlds ecosystem. The reason we have windfarms (etc) is because GW is areal problem. When the Artic ice melts we will reach a tipping point and then we will discover that plants liked the environment as it is now (and that plants are useful to us).
Post a Comment