My belated condolences. I always enjoyed reading his posts and will miss his insight and wide ranging views. May hew…
Is there a moral dimension to being anti-environmental?
One of the blogs I contribute to is Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. Its unique selling point is that Judith is a prominent Warmist who’s taken the unusual step of engaging with us folk of a sceptical persuasion. The current post is about the Lisbon workshop on ‘Reconciliation in the Climate Change Debate’. As posts go, it’s not particularly controversial per se but I certainly had problems with it because of some underlying or perhaps unconscious assumptions.
As the comments rolled in, I could see that the sceptics were not addressing the central question of whether we should even be going down this path of reconciliation at all. On a superficial level, this is understandable. Most conflicts are resolved by means of reconciliation and to refuse to even attempt to do so is usually a churlish and contra productive move. But there is, I believe, another and more subtle reason why the question wasn’t being addressed. We’ve had a decade or more of being propagandized with the propositions that being Green was good for the planet, being Green would save the lives of uncounted generations to come, being Green would bring about some sort of new Jerusalem on Earth. In short, being Green made you a good person; you were moral. This flip side of this is quite simply; if you’re not Green, you’re not moral.
This I think is why I rarely see morality mentioned on the skeptic side of the debate. Sure, arguing the science or even the politics is well inside people’s comfort zone but over and above that, it’s as if we somehow feel we don’t have any moral arguments to deploy. I know we do so I made the following comment to at least kick the question into play.
-<o>-
I have a problem with the whole idea of reconciliation in the climate debate and for once, it’s not political but moral. When an area of science mutates into pseudo-science and attracts a large following, it is always hijacked by political forces, which give it a whole new and terrible dimension. In the end, people get killed or hurt and the sum total of human suffering is increased. Examples, trivial and large, abound of this phenomenon; Phrenology, Lysenkoism, pseudo-Darwinism and Eugenics to name but a few.
There is good and evil in the world and although I’ve met a handful of people I’d truly classify as evil, it’s my experience that the majority of evil deeds done are by ordinary people who think they’re somehow acting on behalf of a higher good or bringing a brighter future closer. Although not the only factor, the rush to produce bio-fuels resulted in a doubling of food staple prices in the developing world. Starvation, death and food riots ensued. I was unfortunate enough to see a food riot and I can assure you, it’s pretty unforgettable.
The pseudo scientific mania of a combination of Eugenics and Nazi-perverted Darwinism led directly to its logical conclusions at Dachau and Bergen-Belsen. It gave a specious scientific authority to horrific acts which were essentially political. It took the discovery of the concentration camps in 1945 to finally pull the plug on that particular science-approved mania although human beings were still being forcibly sterilised into the 1970s.
I view Environmentalism and Global Warming in particular, as being just as evil as the manias above. That being the case, although having dialogue with them may be useful, reconciliation can never be possible. All I’m interested in is stopping them.
Pointman
-<o>-
The first paragraph describes a well-known process in politics. The second is an example of it happening today. The third is an example of that same process in history and the final one is me basically saying I’m not in favour of reconciliation in the debate.
The thread is here. After a slightly stunned silence and a sluggish start, it did indeed kick off some debate although I’ve been variously labelled as an extremist, name caller and the cruellest cut of all, a moral supremacist. Such is life. Between people, reconciliation is all about exchanging apologies, shaking hands and getting on with living together. In politics however, this means coming to some sort of accommodation with each other or to put it more bluntly, making a deal.
Politics is all about making deals. What separates a politician of integrity from one who’s prepared to make any trade to achieve their aims is the character to be able to say no to a certain deal because they know it’s a deal too far. Beyond political acumen, it’s having some sort of morality that alerts them to that. This is a deal too far.
Having said all that, no deal needs to be made here since it is becoming clearer with each passing day that we’ve won the political battle and that’s the one that counts.
©Pointman
Related topic : Moderating, trolls, soup ladles and Ethics.
Comments
52 Responses to “Is there a moral dimension to being anti-environmental?”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...-
[…] This comment arrived in my moderation queue from a new poster calling themselves Sumo. They wanted to comment on a topic I’d posted called ‘Is there a moral dimension to being anti-environmental?’ […]
LikeLike
Pointman's 
An excellent piece pointman.
To me morals are the standards each individual has, the definition of right and wrong and how to relate to others.
In Christian terms this is the ‘Ten Commandments’ which form the moral basis for that religion, equally most other religions have similar guidelines.
In times gone by the church was more powerful and moral guidance was stronger.
Today television,the MSM and political indoctrination have become our default moral guidance.
For most people basic morality is set by our parents and their ‘standards’ and thus even atheists amongst us have moral standards which align with civilised comon sense.
As the ideals of capitalism have arisen, alongside the need for consumerism, growth, ratings and comparisons the public have had their morals challenged by ‘a dog eat dog’ mentality to keep up. The result has been a boom in personal debt, via credit cards, mortgages and loans etc.
Unfortunately our politicians and some other governments around the world have taken the same attitide, to borrow yet more, to cover todays debt obligations. In truth this is merely kicking the can down the road for our children to be impoverished.
AGW in particular seems to be a way for the governments to impose supposedly ethical green taxes as a means of digging themselves, and the bankers, out of the hole they are digging. Thus I agree with your last statement absolutely that no deal shall be made and our politiciains and bankers be forced to face up and clean up this fraud.
Now Is Not THe Time To Let Up
The Truth Will Out
motm
LikeLike
“our politiiciains and bankers be forced to face up and clean up this fraud.”
Ahem. Would those be the same lot torpedoing the economy ? How has it escaped your attention that your necessities of life are all in the hands of those persons ? Who will bell the cat ?
LikeLike
Very good thread, Pointman!
Also noted the ‘stir’ on J. Curry’s blog your comments there caused. I fully agree with you on the parallells (historical) between todays ‘climateology’ and lysenkoism, eugenics and other perversions that gather all kind of zealots.
The well known Svante Arrhenius was a lead person in the Swedish Institute of Racebiology, which was formed in Upsala in 1922. The ‘SIFR’ was first of its kind in the world and S.A. was a member of its board. But, amaze!, it took until 1958 (!) before this institute was ‘reformed’ into ‘Institute for Medical Genetics’… brrrrr!
Any wonder, that the socialists – Palme – banned history as core subject in Swedish school education…?
A link to Wiki on SIFR (in Swedish, though):
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statens_institut_f%C3%B6r_rasbiologi
Brgds
//ThomasJ
LikeLike
Excellent topic.
I think the “debate” here is much like the health-care debate. Or the kid asking Dad for $100. We assume the health care system is broken (it isn’t) and that it needs massive Gov fixing (it doesn’t.) Therefore the starting point is moved from “Do we need to do this, at all” to “Ok, this needs to be done, in a massive way, now we’ll fight over the details.” The extreme is asked for and the argument is that its needed and that becomes the starting point. Then, any compromise moves from that point. And the kid gets his $20.
So the environmental argument starts with the extreme “the world is going to die unless we mend our evil ways” and goes from there. I don’t think there’s any there, there, so the whole argument should be chucked and start from zero. It doesn’t help their argument when we can clearly see that mending our ways puts an awful lot of power and money into some very questionable hands and that the cures do not really address the problem (Kyoto, for example) and give us a very real pain in the backside. The environment gains nothing, we gain less than nothing, and now we have “leaders” locked into a position of much greater power over our lives, as well as, just coincidentally, being a lot richer.
This is claimed to be moral?
Is Green moral? I think it depends on how you define Green. Is Global Warming real? (and I’ll ignore the nonsensical “climate change” here.) It depends. I’ve noticed that the definition tends to shift, a lot, depending on what resistance the speaker is getting. It’s anywhere from the natural variations result is the small warming that we’ve seen to the extreme argument. Green is the same way. One the one hand, industry, power, our “western lifestyles” can be very clean and respectful of the environment. The extreme Green, which would like to see totalitarian control over our lives and massive population reduction is a whole ‘nother story.
I don’t think we need reconciliation with the latter camp. We need to completely reject their ideas and start from zero.
“I view Environmentalism and Global Warming in particular, as being just as evil as the manias above.”
Yes, they certainly can be. So when people get into discussions like this I think there needs to be more clarity. This is why some of us use CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) to represent the alarmist side and drop the C for the part which might actually have a tiny amount of evidence to support it. That’s where the discussion needs to start. The CAGW side, as well, isn’t the slightest bit interested in reconciliation and they won’t be winning hearts and minds with their very obvious contempt for other idea.
“Having said all that, no deal needs to be made here since it is becoming clearer with each passing day that we’ve won the political battle and that’s the one that counts.”
No, not even close. We’ve managed to get into the game, but the other team, even through it’s floundering, is still way ahead and has vastly more in the way of resources at its disposal. We’ve got a chance, especially with that new blood in Washington, but it’s a long way to go. Break the media hold and it will go down faster.
Now, in a few years, it’s likely that the argument is going to slide into the coming ice age (like it did in the 70s) and I’m sure the environmentalists will demand a government take-over of everything in order to save us from our evil ways. They will casually poo-poo their prior warming arguments. It’s happened before, several times.
manonthemoor’s remark that Pols think that they are using (C)AGW to dig themselves out of a hole is interesting. I agree that they might think that, but I think that history shows us that giving Government (any government) more money and power just digs that hole deeper and faster.
So again, kill it all dead. Now.
LikeLike
I agree the media flip flops from one scare to the next but is going to be hard to blame humans if it starts to cool. So we would have CGC rather than CAGC. As well as that wouldn’t there be period of “sorry but our science was all wrong”. What is unprecedented though is the belief that it is desirable that planet be cooler and that we can make it so. What is being said is that not only can we predict what climate will be 50 to 100 years in the future but also that we can control it! In Australia we are fed the line that if we reduce our emissions by 5% then the rest of the world will follow. Australia generates 1.4% total and I am sure we do not that sort of influence.
Foisting this delusion on us all and teaching it in the schools has to be immoral!
LikeLike
MOTM,
An excellent response to the Pointman’s challenge on morals and ethics – you seem to have covered all the bases in respect of our current Climate debate and the political/social repercussions.
Pointman,
Morals and ethics seem to no longer be considered relevant factors in choices/decisions made on anything at all. It always seems to be a case of “what’s in it for me?” – what’s the bottom-line? – what political or economic advantage can be gained?
After all, what does a politician have to lose by making Policy assurances he knows he’ll never have to deliver? – His fat pension entitlements, his seat on a Board or Quango? No. Political expediency allows him to say/do ‘whatever it takes’ based on whether it will get him and/or his Party re-elected. The morals and ethics and the best interests of the electorate who voted him into Office are not part of the equation.
A Climate Scientist doesn’t have to figure morals/ethics into the data he feeds into his computer models. That’s not his job. He has his tenure, his funding, his international jaunts to conferences and symposia where he and his colleagues congratulate each other on their prowess in predictions for the Climate decades hence. Does he have to deliver on them? Of course not – he has nothing to lose, he has everything to gain by simply providing the ‘scientific’ justification for the Political Policies his Masters pay him for.
Any person can make any commitment to a friend, lover or business associate – in the knowledge that he/she never has to deliver on it. Not hard when that person has nothing to lose themselves. Morals, ethics and “is it the right thing to do?” are never part of the equation. Sometimes, simply feeding an ego is enough justification for manipulating the behaviour of others. Control is at issue, not ethics.
Isn’t it pathetic when the term ‘moral supremacist’ is meant as an insult? Someone even asked if you had heard of Godwin? Such an ignoramus should go see what Godwin actually said. It wasn’t to ban ANY comparisons to the Nazi ethos, it was to caution that such parallels not be “invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.”
Pointman, your comparisons are the essence of the CAGW debate – Lies, misinformation, propaganda, ‘education’ of the masses to the required point of view, manipulation and finally population Control to advance the Wealth and Power of the Elite.
It isn’t rocket-science, it isn’t any kind of science – it’s simply the aggrandizement of the few at the expense of the many.
I agree – no deals, no compromise, no handshakes, no trade-offs. Screw ’em.
LikeLike
@ greg2213………
Great comment – I agree that we haven’t won the political battle – not when the Politicians are still bull-dozing their inane Climate policies through, such as Personal Carbon Credit Cards or Tradable Energy Quotas. War-time rationing in defense of the planet? Insane. This battle isn’t over by any means. Discredited? Yes. Defeated? Not by a long chalk.
My favourite bit? “And the kid gets his $20.” In a nutshell Greg, in a nutshell.
LikeLike
Fire…Fire!!! There’s a blackswan on fire!!!
LikeLike
Gee Scud – what does that mean?
As in roast goose/swan or as in crash and burn?
Hot under the collar maybe, but nary a singed feather in sight……lol.
LikeLike
He he Swanny…No, just great comments my friend! So good your gonna need a dowsing with carbon dioxide!
LikeLike
Thanks Scud. Better just toss me back in the river – a Co2 fire extinguisher would likely incur some sort of emissions carbon tax!!
LikeLike
Sorry that would pollute the river. We need nitrogen only way in this “Green” world.
LikeLike
Gee MikeO,
I only meant to wet me down and put the fire out…….LOL
If I was a dead-duck, er, swan, I’d be fish food or the skewers and gulls would have a feast. That’s not pollution mate, that’s Life (and Death) and the essence of recycling…….LOL
LikeLike
Good to see Kuhn getting a proper airing at Curry’s place.
About time too.
Best,
OL
LikeLike
Now, this below link pdf is mostly in Swedish, however some citations are in English. The work/paper shows in detail the various (C)AGW-playing parties and their respective roles & influence in the whole ‘debate’. And it’s really scaring, which also is why this paper has been totally ‘damned’ from publication here in Sweden.
Click to access Thoughtsleadingtoaction3.pdf
I’ll try to look for a English version. In the mean time…, readers might exploit a ‘new’ language… 😉
Brgds from Sweden
//TJ
LikeLike
Hello TJ,
Thanks for the link – there was much of interest in the English quotes – funny how the names of Rockefeller and the Club of Rome kept popping up, so familiar to us now.
I see the Pointman has found a translation for us – I’ll be sure and get to it a little later.
LikeLike
Of course you will be familiar with the following quote:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
It is more of a road map of the last twenty five or so years than a quote (in my eyes anyway). I tend to handle anything that has involvement by Carnegie, Rockefeller, Club of Rome, etcetera with very long asbestos gloves.
LikeLike
Hello Sumo and welcome. I suppose being anti-environmental means you exercise the moral courage to say no to it in your everyday life. I do. When someone rattles the collecting tin in your face and tells you it’s for the environment, say no. When Greenpeace lends their name to a product, boycott it. When your local politician campaigns using environmental issues, don’t vote for them.
Above all, don’t go with the flow and believe me, it’ll be against you. Rather than sitting in company listening to someone prattling on about being green, pull them up on it. You’ll soon get used to stunned silences. You’ll always be asked why and the simple and most effective answer is to state that you don’t care for their politics.
Pointman
LikeLike
Or religion!
LikeLike
@ThomasJ.
Hello again Thomas and thanks for the link. Here’s a google translate of the material http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statens_institut_f%25C3%25B6r_rasbiologi&ei=J3xETeSiLJS1hAfNmLy3AQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statens_institut_f%2525C3%2525B6r_rasbiologi%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1020%26bih%3D567%26prmd%3Divns
If you’re shocked about the pervasiveness of the Eugenics movement in Sweden, then you should know that it was exactly the same in every country. The only country that never passed Eugenics legislation was the UK. This wasn’t because they were more enlightened than the other countries. The legislation was stopped by a small and determined group of people who saw Eugenics for what it was and where it would go. They did it by a combination of filibustering, legislative guerilla war and delaying tactic after delaying tactic.
They were very unpopular for doing so and their careers never recovered. There are no statues to them but then again, I’m sure they’d not be too bothered about that. Moral courage.
Pointman
LikeLike
Hello Pointman & mny txs for the translation (have to get a grip on that feature… 😉 )
As to the Eugenics ‘movement’ here in Sweden, we still (today!) have a lot of ‘hang-overs’, i.e. the numerous skulls of native ‘Laplanders’ (‘Same people) that were taken from graves in the North for ‘scientific research’ of size, form, cheek, forehead and so on and now (still!) are ‘stored’ in the basement (‘catacombs’) of the National Museum of History in Stockholm. The ancestors have been fighting for years to get these back in order to bury them according their tradition but, so far, to no avail.
Nowadays, after the ‘reformation’ of the ‘Race Institute’ in 1958 into ‘Institute for Medical Genetics’ one would have hoped for some kind of common sensed & scientific sound based academia but…, it’s gotten even more perverse. Sweden has, as the only country in the World (as far I know) since 1998 a so called ‘National Secretariat of Genus Science’, based at the U of Gothenburg. The object of this ‘secretariat’ is to promote research out of the views of the perspectives of gender and genus. Its hydra like tentacles have spread to almost all segments of the Swedish society. I.e. one b to specify from named perspectives view in any and all applications for research grants – regardless of research topic. If not, the application is automatically rejected! It’s very close to being a ‘modern time’ type of Eugenics. Any wonder?
That’s (part of) Sweden in 2011 and I’m truly ashamed of it being so. It’s nowhere near the kind of leading, even less ‘conscious’ of the Globus as our politic ‘leaders’ love to transmit.
FYI: I’ve lived and worked in other countries for ~ 28 years, out of which 26 in Germany, so there is a rather broad bank of experience I have gathered.
Brgds from Sweden
//TJ
LikeLike
Correction: I.e. one b to specify – shall be: I.e one has to specify…
Sorry.
//TJ
LikeLike
Thomas, we have contributors to the blog from the UK, the Americas, Australia and other places as well. English is our first language. You, on the other hand, take the trouble to post to us substantial and interesting comments in English, which isn’t your first language, Your meaning is always clear. You’re the last person on this blog who ever needs to say sorry for a few typos.
Pointman
LikeLike
Well there ought to some other people being ashamed:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/carnegie_institution_study_gen.html
brrrrr….
Brgds from Sweden
//TJ
PS: Pointman; thanks for showing compatibility with somewhat ‘Swedish’ dialect…, err.. typos 😉
LikeLike
Hello TJ
Thanks for the link to the Carnegie study – at last the mask slips and the true intention of the Environmentalists is revealed. As in your example of Laplander remains being stored in museums, so too are the mortal remains of many original now-extinct Tasmanian indigenous people stored in the museums of Britain, their descendants of mixed European race have been fighting for many years to have such remains restored to their homeland. Occasionally they are successful, but many others still languish in foreign lands.
The “sustainability” of human occupation as revealed in this study is exactly the purpose of the United Nations Agenda 21; obligations under this Treaty have been cited by the Australian Government as the reason our Constitution has been ignored as private agricultural land is being commandeered by the Government (without financial compensation) and declared to be “Carbon Sinks”, banning any clearing of forest re-growth and making the land unusable for crops or livestock pastures. This is being challenged in our High Court, successfully for some, unhappily not for others who have been plunged into ruin and forced to sell their property.
The results of all such studies will be seized upon by the UN as justification for their genocidal policies. The big problem with Agenda 21 is that it has provisions for making their rules enforceable by member countries.
How appropriate that Pointman has chosen morals and ethics as his topic as there appears to be no sign of a humanitarian conscience in any of the people involved with these studies and policies.
LikeLike
Hello Blackswan (Feb 1, 2011 / 3:25): Txs for response. You’re right on spot there with the Agenda 21, which – per se – is the most dangerous (lethal) and yet least known of all ‘governing’ papers from the UN.
I’m part time politician in this small community and member of some local governing bodies, one of which is deciding on all matters of building, street planning, water/waste, rescue etc., and there is not one single of the other members on this body that has even heard of the existence of ‘Agenda 21’… Of course, the Swedish Government has ratified it – as always over the heads of the people, with no discussion whatsoever…
And talking about the indigenous population, Sweden is one of very few countries that has NOT ratified the ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989), more on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people (pls. read especially under ‘Land Rights’) (BTW: ‘same’ = sami).
Pending almost anything, one might take a ‘Go Figure’ on this quote (in translation) from Sw. Wiki:
“The term ethnic group means, according the Chancellor of Justice, each existing ethnicity other than the Swedish. The Swedes excluded explains the Chancellor with that purpose in the shaping of penal provisions on incitement to racial hatred was to ensure minority groups of different compositions and adherents of various faiths a property. The case that someone expresses criticism against the Swedes would not have been intended to meet the penal provisions.”
Please, do (mis)understand me right, I’m a truly liberal (original!) trusting and thinking person but, sic!, the fundamental values of this (me mind!) seem to have vanished in this country, which deFacto has, just as Yours has, the best of best of requisites to be just that: the best for all!
That’s some more on Sweden for You to consider when hearing from/reading about/ how ‘superb’ this Swedish society is…
Moral courage, as Pointman said before, is just as rarely found as common sense (…is not that common anymore. is it?)
My Country hurts me, as a Danish poet put it in 1982 (the ‘potato crisis’) – I agree for Sweden in 2011!
Kind of: Hey, stop the world, I’d like to jump off this lunacy ride….!
Additional: NO, there is NO way to any form, nor ‘attempt’ to (i.e. as per J. Curry) for a ‘reconciliation’ with the CAGW:ers nor any other society lethal figuring persons, directly as well as indirectly. Period!
Brgds from Sweden
//TJ
BTW: There are quite a number of Scandinavians living in Your area of the World, thus I’d like to recommend a Swedish site of great interest (AGW) – actually the most read one! :
http://www.theclimatescam.se
//TJ
LikeLike
TJ – Thanks so much for your detailed and considered response to these issues.
I had no knowledge of the Sami people, thank you for enlightening me – how ironic that indigenous peoples have all been subjected to similar persecution, no matter the hemisphere or the Government that perpetrates it. It seems to have been a Common Purpose that such peoples be absorbed into the majority population and their culture, homelands and spiritual beliefs diminished, if not extinguished entirely.
We all seem to have these “Stop the World, I want to get off” moments, but then we realise that if we-who-are-aware don’t fight for our rights and those of our children then, like the Sami or original Tasmanians, we too will be subsumed into an homogeneous mass of unthinking, unquestioning automatons who do the bidding and create wealth for the Elite.
Many northern Europeans have made this Island State their home, a more temperate climate than the harsh extremes of the Mainland. Nice to ‘meet’ you TJ – looking forward to your comments on future interesting subjects the Pointman has for us to discuss.
LikeLike
Blackswan, Thanks. 🙂
It’s good to be anti-environmental, if the environmentalists are like these guys:
IPCC Green Doctor Prescribes End to Democracy to Solve Global Warming here
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth” WUWT
The 10/10 video
Global Warming Alarmist Calls For Eco-Gulags To Re-Educate Climate Deniers here
Some other guys in this crowd have made statements that would make them the equal of any James Bond villain (population reduction, for one) Who needs SPECTRE when these guys make SPECTRE look like a bunch of wannabes?
So kinda like feminism isn’t about women, and eugenics isn’t about improving people in general, environmentalism isn’t about the environment. So I’d have to say that I’m anti-environmental, insofar as being environmental would tend to group me in with these people.
LikeLike
@Sumo.
What those people are doing is older than Environmentalism; it’s called community spirit. I regularly come back from fishing days with my pockets full of other people’s discarded litter.
What’s important is where a thing’s heading for, not any immediate benefits it appears to be offering. Let’s take a different approach. Your country’s in ruins, you, like everyone else, are unemployed with no prospect of a job and inflation is rampant. A politician comes to you and says he can fix it all in five years. You whip out your crystal ball and indeed it shows you that he did all of those good things he’d promised. His name is Adolph Hitler. He looks to be the man you’re going to vote for then but hang on; what’s the ten year forecast? Bad times and 50 million dead. Will you still vote for him Sumo because he’s going to do some good things?
Pointman
LikeLike
@Sumo
It’s Winter 1935 and the local party in your village in the Hartz mountains decides to do a free handout of soup to the local poor people. It’s a good thing, a good deed. They ask you to help. Knowing that it will be good propoganda for the party, will you ladel out soup for them?
Pointman
LikeLike
Hey P… Great post!
I think that it should be obvious by now to even to the most casual observer that ‘environmentalism’ is just yet another thinly veiled tactic of the left to undermine democracy and the western capitalist system.
It’s nothing to do with the surroundings in which we live but rather another of those snide, snickering, twisted little vehicles dreamt up…or in this case leapt upon by our resident, bitter little shit for brains comrades that is…on the face of it…difficult to argue against.
Against multiculturalism and uncontrolled immigration?…You’re a racist.
Against political correctness?…You’re an unwashed, bigoted, chauvinist scumbag.
Against ‘equality’…don’t get me even started.
Against an ever increasing state?…What…Why?…. They know much more about what is good for you than you do yourself do boy!
The ‘environment’ though is the ‘killer of moral issues’ and obviously they aren’t about to let go of it in a hurry….cometh even a new ice age. To quote ‘The Terminator’…’It can’t be reasoned with, it can’t be bargained with….and it absolutely will not stop until you are dead.’
Even though the socialist model of the 20th C has not…ever…in any case or form…shown to be anything other than an unmitigated disaster resulting in a cumulated death toll of over 100 million people it is simply astonishing that there are still people on this Earth that think it the answer to all.
The big give away is surely the fact that these pond sucking, chippy…I personally have not achieved filth…will argue the fact that the world is coming to an end even in the light of proven…black and white….clear as fucking day fraud. If they were true to their ’cause’…I.e ‘true environmentalism’ there would have been a collective sucking of teeth followed by an almighty ‘Hoorah’!…but no! Instead, we have this desperate cling to world Armageddon which is in reality a cling to world socialism though of course…true to socialist, chippy form….they’ll not tell you that.
We must come to the conclusion that these
They are wrong and have been proved to be wrong in the most brutal of terms
LikeLike
Err…sorry about the end there.
LikeLike
Think you might be smouldering a little there yourself Scud.
You said it all – and then some.
LikeLike
Smouldering? It makes the Yellowstone Caldera look like a damp squid. LOL
Pointman
LikeLike
@Sumo. It’s a simple question. Those poor people could certainly use a hot meal. Will you ladel a bowl of soup out for them or not?
Pointman
LikeLike
Pointman
My answer to your question? Cook ’em up another pot of soup. Better still, give the poor folks some ingredients and show them how to make it for themselves.
There are very few ‘free lunches’ that don’t come with strings attached, one way or another.
LikeLike
@Sumo.
After 48 hours of struggling, you’ve finally came back with an answer. You will feed hot soup to those poor wretches and advance the cause of a political movement you already know, courtesy of your crystal ball, will lead to the loss of 50 million lives. I don’t have the advantage of your crystal ball so I have to look at the politics and the trends and make a judgement.
It isn’t a ‘loaded question’. It’s what’s called a moral dilemma which is at the heart of the topic above. Ethics. Remember? It’s what you were trying to waltz me into but somehow I waltzed you into one instead. There is no ‘correct’ answer, just the one each of us will make in those circumstances and either way, learn to live with. Not many people are unfortunate enought to have to make those types of decisions but I’m one. I made mine and on the Environmental movement, I’m making another.
Pointman
LikeLike
@Sumo.
BTW. I really don’t have to put up with people being blatantly dishonest contributors to my blog and to add insult to injury, insulting my intelligence. You’ve served your purpose though and now you’re banned.
Pointman
LikeLike
On a political level, I had two reservations about this particular meeting. Firstly, it was a meeting of skeptics and moderate climate scientists. The latter are I suppose warmists but their composition does not contain the alarmists who have the positions of authority and influence. It’s the alarmists who’re in the driving seat. Essentially, the moderates are not only the wrong people to negotiate a peace treaty with but also they’ve not got the political power of the extremists.
Secondly, I think the moderates represented continue to be disingenous. They’re quite happy to let the alarmists spread the scares without saying a word to contradict them, even when they know what the alarmists are saying is scientific nonsense. If they just for once stood up and called out a prominent extremist’s latest diatribe, I’d have some respect for them.
Pointman
LikeLike
I quite enjoyed the thread, Pointman.
As to the idea of conceding anything to Warmists being immoral…it’s also bad tactics. Though I frequent ‘environmental’ forums and quite agree that many of their concerns are laudable but impractical, when I get to a situation like AGW my reaction is not that of a scientist – but that of someone who sees the contest as ‘war by other means.’
Political punditry generally runs in channeled and proscribed circles which never progress to what should otherwise have been obvious conclusions.Sometimes even then there is Art.
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/03/well-paid-assholes-with-opinions-versus-poorly-paid-assholes-with-opinions/
LikeLike
Hello and welcome Opit. The ‘other means’ is basically information war, something that didn’t exist when Vom Kriege was written.
Pointman
LikeLike
The next great scare the climatitus pandemic http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/climatitis-pandemic. Seriously though in that article some of the propaganda videos are mentioned, they are certainly detestable and immoral.
LikeLike
Just noting a source of information I have found useful which others might also. The CCNet newsletter from GWPF. It clearly said that Copenhagen would fail with correct reasons why about 18 months before. If everyone already gets it then sorry to raised it.
Last one had
——————————-
1) Anger Over Prince Charles’s Climate Change Blast – Daily Express, 10 February 2011
2) The Shame Of Green Britain: The Prince of Wales vs the Children of Wales – Wales Online, 8 February 2011
3) World Bank Report: Stern’s Disaster Claims ‘Completely Inconsistent With Empirical Evidence’ – Roger Pielke Jr, 9 February 2011
4) Anne Jolis: The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder – The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2011
5) Republicans Propose to Reprioritize NASA for Human Space Flight Missions, Drop Climate Change – SpaceRef, 9 February 2011
6) Projected Impact Of Global Warming On Europe Negligible – The Resilient Earth, 9 February 2011
——————————-
LikeLike
I’ve no time for “Gucci Socialists/Martini Marxists”. I recycle, pick up litter, turn off lights, catch and release (when I am fortunate enough to catch one of Kamloops’ prized Rainbows) and generally try to treat the world and the people in it with some respect (until that proves a mistake). I suspect I am an environmentalist but I feel no allegiance to a cause (CAGW) that has little to do with environmentalism but instead is using environmentalism as a shroud to hide the true objectives and I am no where near smart enough to figure all those out. I just know I don’t like it:). It distresses me to see so many people buy in without asking any questions but….
I really enjoy your postings and look forward to future topics.
Cheers,
DBD
LikeLike
Hello and welcome DBD. When it comes to anti-environmentalism, it’s a baby and the bath water type of problem. Twenty years ago I would have been classed as an environmentalist but I’d reject that label today.
Pointman
LikeLike
And if I may…if you don’t all ready read Canadian Donna Laframboise (http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/) I’d highly recommend it.
DBD
LikeLike
@All, I’d second DBD’s recommendation. If you’ve never visited Donna’s blog, you’re in for a treat.
Pointman
LikeLike
Pointman, I have looked in on your blog at intervals in the recent past and I have been intrigued by many of your topics. In general, I feel I have less to add to most of your topics than I have to take away from them. This means I read but do not post. But I have some observations about the subject of morality.
The morality of any action, in my opinion, would be a “second level” value dependent on the intention of the action. For example, euthanasia (With proper agreements and safeguards) that was intended to alleviate suffering, would be “moral” but the exact same action, in the exact same situation, if purposed to expedite an inheritance would be immoral.
Considering any action as intrinsically moral or immoral is the 800 pound gorilla that derails so many discussions and prevents people from reaching a common ground. It is so frustrating to see this happen time and time again.
By the way, you have a great blog with intriguing topics. (I can flatter too) ;>)
Johnz
LikeLike
Pointman,
I like to use the term “green” for the political activists who try to use environmental issues (real or fake) to promote their collectivist agenda. I keep the term “environmentalist” to those who are genuinely concerned about the environment and are rational about it.
What an environmentalist will realise is that prosperity is good for the environment. If people are having a problem putting food on the table, then that is their only priority. Ensure that they can feed, clothe and house themselves and their families and then they start to look at making the area they live in better, cleaner, etc. In short they will then look to improve thier environment.
What a “green” will do is perform economic vandalism to get power over others because collectivism needs poverty and repression to survive. The fact that the environment will lose out as people try to get the basics happening does not matter to a “green”.
LikeLike
Hi Truthseeker.
I would agree on your understanding of the difference between being Green and Environmentalism, if we were having this conversation 15 years ago but not today. Essentially, environmentalism has long ago been hijacked by green activism, which is why I’m an anti-environtalist. Environmentalism is now a thoroughly tainted brand. We need a new ism-word that gets back to the old sense of environmentalism.
Your point about prosperity and its relationship with our willingness to be stewards of the Earth is well made and I can’t help but agree. If you take the view, which I do, that green politics are essentially pro-gaia and anti-human, then and only then, do their politics make any sense.
Pointman
LikeLike