The AGW movement, and the Green Movement out of which it came, are Trojan Horses which are being used to introduce Socialist ideas into Western political systems.
Just for the record, the reason I don't believe Global Warming is going to kill us is because, at 46 years of age, I have been Chicken Littled by scientists far too many times.
During the course of my lifetime, I have been told
1) we were overpopulating the earth (it turns out all of our problems with food have to do with distribution, not shortages)
2) we would eat each other like rats in cages (I have yet to see evidence of mass cannibalism caused by overcrowding)
3) we were polluting ourselves to death (the USA is cleaner than when I was a kid, but the third world is more polluted, proving the solution to pollution is not less productivity but more Capitalism)
4) we were destroying all the forests and would run out of oxygen (the US is more forested now than in the 1800's)
5) we were going to choke the earth with plastics (I have yet to see the Earth huffing and puffing for its last breath)
6) we were going to run out of oil (I had several professors in college in the early 80's who promised me we would run out of oil by the early 1990's - we actually have MORE KNOWN RESERVES NOW THAN AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY - AND IT IS ALL BUT A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT OIL IS NOT A FOSSIL FUEL, BUT IS INSTEAD A NATURAL OCCURRING SUBSTANCE)
And now, these malevolent, insane scientists are telling us we are destroying the Earth with CO2, which they say causes Global Warming.
Why would anyone believe them, after all they've been wrong about?
AND, THE MOST AMAZING THING IS I HAVE NEVER HEARD AN APOLOGY FROM ANY SCIENTIST FOR ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT.
Why do you think that is?
And note this, have you ever heard any apologies from the Left for having been wrong about Stalin, the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan's strategy for destroying the Soviet Union, the idea that Reagan would start a nuclear war, etc.?
No, there are no apologies from the Scientists who have been wrong.
And, there are no apologies from the Leftists who were wrong about Communism and its death toll, nor about how to destroy the USSR.
And, why do you think these two groups refuse to apologize when they have terrorized us with their never-ending bullshit?
Because, the Leftists and the Scientists share the same goal, and that is they want to do away with consumption, capitalism, and ultimately, human beings in large numbers.
They hate life. And, they want to drag all of us down with them.
How it is that scientists make all these mistakes, terrorize us with predictions about the end of the world, and then refuse to apologize when they are proven wrong.
Additionally, we need to consider why it is that the answers scientists come up with to solve all these problems have always involved totalitarian government intervention.
For instance, Obama's Czar John Holdren prescribed forced abortions and mass sterilization to deal with the overpopulation "problem" (which has turned out to be a complete myth).
John Holdren has never taken his words back, nor has he apologized.
And, consider this, when people are constantly taught the world is coming to an end, how are they to plan for the future? How are they supposed to have hope?
And, if people believe our population is too high, why should they have children? Is not life less joyful, less full of love and hope, if we have less children?
And, if people believe consumerism inevitably leads to more Global Warming then, once again, why should people have children? After all, every child added to the world is yet another consumer, who will inevitably make the Earth even warmer.
If we are to take these scientists seriously, we must consider
1) what the psychological effect is on human beings who are told the world is ending (damages our ability to live with hope and joy)
and
2) what our society would look like if we actually decided to use the prescriptions of these insane totalitarian scientists ...
Imagine if we took their prescriptions for public policy. Most of you under the age of 35 probably would NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN.
If we do not consider these questions, then we are being complacent, and intellectually dishonest. Not just about science, but about the reality of the prescriptions, and about the reality of the mass psychological damage to human beings.
Do not be complacent about these questions, becaue they are fundamental questions which go right to the heart of the love, joy, and hope. They are questions which force us to consider whether we can even afford to enjoy life.
And that is at least as important as Global Warming.
25 comments:
Pastorius,
By the way, I never said that we should not be concerned about other things like this, and no I don't think that we are all going to die because of global warming. It still does not mean that there is no global warming, and that man is not effecting the climate. Just to clear things up.
What are your answers to the questions put forth in this post?
As I said, they are at least as important as Global Warming.
Do you disagree with that?
Would you prefer to not have been born, for instance?
Pastorius,
I already answered those questions, and no off course I would not prefer to not of been born. I'm glad to still be here. I wouldn't say the questions that you are asking are not as important as the issue of global warming. Many of them are at least as important to me. But we shouldn't just deny that something is happening to support an agenda and it seems to me that many of don't think that global warming is happening at all, while, I think there's something to all of it.
You did not answer this question:
Why do you think it is that scientists do this?
Why do they prescribe totalitarian solutions to their Chicken Little nonsense?
Why is it these scientists never apologize (when they are proven wrong) for the psychological damage they do to people?
Pastorius,
Because some scientists are insensitive and are nut jobs and some are totalitarian statists just like everyone else.
Being a scientist does not mean you can't be a totalitarian ideology. There were Nazi scientists for one thing. You almost certainly know who Joseph Mangele was.
I'm currently engaged in writing chapter six of my magnum opus, "A Genealogy of Left Dhimmi Fascism," this penultimate chapter being "Oikos III," on ecology.
What my research shows so far is that "ecology," a so-called science, founded in the 1860s by German anti-Semitebiologist Ernst Haekel, is in fact a branch of Aesthetics. It is a moral imperative to make the Earth, rather than the world, to follow Heidegger's distinction,beautiful. The ecocentric demands the suppression of the anthropocentric for aesthetic reasons. Part of the aesthetic is the aescetic, the Puritan ethos of the Gnostic.
This is definitely going to be a best-seller.
Damein,
Your answer is good, but not sufficient.
NONE OF THEM EVER APOLOGIZE.
NEVER.
Find me one case in the last 50 years where a scientist who has given us some Chicken Little b.s., and prescribed totalitarian, answers has ever apologized.
Just give me one.
If they were just nutjobs some of them would come to their senses and apologize.
The thing is, it's not just insanity. It is that they are leftists embedded in the scientific community.
Don't know if you know this, Damien, but I am a registered Democrat and I used to be a Chomsky/Zinn-reading Leftie.
Pastorius,
You told me all of that other than the fact that you're a registered democrat.
Dag,
That book your working on sounds interesting, maybe when you finish it, I'll read it.
"I'd hate it if I wasn't here." - Lucy Van Pelt.
Seriously, Damien, if you think this is just the result of "insensitivity" by a few "nutjobs", explain why there is so much resistance from the anthropogenic global warming believers to alternate theories such as solar activity. Might they realize that it would sound absurd to blame human population and industrialization for the effects of sunspots (or lack thereof), volcanic eruptions, and the like? (Look up 1816, the "year without a summer", and ask yourself how that catastrophic climate change event could possibly have been caused by human CO2 production.)
Back in 1971, some of us thought Ayn Rand was being extreme when she accused those advocating social engineering schemes in the name of "ecology" of trying to destroy technology. She countered by pointing out that 1) we tended to take technology for granted as if it were a fact of nature, 2) didn't believe there were people who actually wished for the destruction of the human population, and 3) we had been taught that abstract ideas had no practical consequences.
A year ago a lot of people still believed Barack Hussein Obama was just "naive".
10 years ago a lot of us had no idea that Islam advocated the subjugation or destruction of all non-believers.
In order to fight a danger you must accurately identify what it is. The AGW totalitarianists claim we refuse to recognize the "reality" of AGW. I agree with Pastorius that the real problem is that people refuse to recognize the danger posed by draconian policies proposed in the name of AGW "climate change".
An interesting debate, if only one-sided. I am 49 and remember all the chicken littles bockbocking about the end of the world, too. As for Damien's comment about some scientists being statist...why, whatever could be so wrong about that? heh. Would a little warming do the uninhabited northern climes so badly? Canadians all huddled to their southern border, leaving the 2nd largest country on earth unplanted, unharvested and unpeopled. Russia's population has declined to the point of extinction. I saw a movie from Russia, which showed abandoned city after abandoned city....these weren't even near Chernobyl, either. These were depopulated because people don't like living under socialism. They don't want to be herded into large apartment blocks and forced to live as they wouldn't otherwise live.
These 'scientists' are the new high priests of an insidious religion whose god is nature and at nature's alter they would gladly sacrifice other people to assuage their god.
Revere rides again,
There's more than one cause for climate change, its not just CO2. Pretty every one out there, who accepts that man's CO2 emissions are affecting the climate regard it as one of many factors and not the only factor, since after all, man has only been here for a tiny fraction of the Earth's history. If the entire Earth's history was compressed into one calender year, man would only appear on the last day, and most of the time there would be nothing but microbes, if there was any life at all. Yet almost no scientist will tell you that the Earth's climate has ever been completely stable. The Sun is certainly another factor that contributes to the Earth's climate. I don't think that you will find many climatologists including the ones who accept that man is affecting the climate, who would tell you that the sun is not one of the factors involved.
Also keep in mind that theory has a different meaning science than common usage.
Pastorius, for translation in some software...
FULL SHARIA IN SPAIN, WOMAN SENTENCED TO DEATH...
http://jn.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Mundo/Interior.aspx?content_id=1440534
the weirdos:
www.hopenhagen.org
«sign the petition, become a citizen» - WHAT?????
Pastorius,
islamists declared holy war on russia:
http://dn.sapo.pt/inicio/globo/interior.aspx?content_id=1437230&seccao=Europa&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+DN-Globo+(DN+-+Globo)
get a translator software
My knowledge of science begins and ends with Bacon's Novum Organum; my knwledge of "global warming" is epistemological, which is pretty exciting and convincingly important to those who follow it. As but one facet of this approach, look to Enlil, the Sumerian the earth god and god of wind and storms; the sky god Anu; and the water god Ea: People were created to serve as slave-labour for the gods, but people were noisy and they had overpopulated, keeping Enlil awake and disturbing his thoughts; thus, he determined to annihilate them with-- bad weather! A flood! Climate change! global warming! Luckily the Global Warming scientist god Enki warned Atrahasis ("The Extremely Wise")/Uta-Napishti that a serious flood was coming due to Global Warming.
Look to this:
The country was as noisy as a bellowing bull
The God grew restless at their racket,
Enlil had to listen to their noise.
He addressed the great gods,
"The noise of mankind has become too much,
I am losing sleep over their racket.
So he sends a flood even worse, if you can imagine it, than Hurricane Katrina. All of mankind would have perished if not for the extremely wise global warming scientist who saved us by building an ark.
But look to the idea not of a proto Noah but to the idea of the demigod who saves mankind, to the Gnostic seer who has the special insight into the mind of the supreme God. That's where we see a mythological replay of endless duration.
This is but one reason I take an epistemological view of global warming. I have many other approaches that all show a similar if slightly different understanding of the same story: that it is Gnostic and, to use a technical term little understood, "fascistic."
Chapter six, (of seven,) is as of this evening at page 128 with 278 footnotes.
Anonymous,
The Russia story page does not load for me.
Thanks anyway.
I'll post the Spain story from another source.
To save Gaia we need a war to off as many polluting people as possible
If you care to follow up on that theme, look to John Manes, Green Rage. New York: Little Brown; 1999. (Off the top of my head.) Manes beats the tar out of Pianka, of whom Pastorius and I have written earlier.
I wrote about Pianka and Manes?
Eric Pianka, Re: "Lizard expert calls for 90% of people to die of Ebola."
Or: "The truth about the destructive religion of Environmentalism."
The bottom line: The most consistent, dedicated environmentalists want you, and everyone else, to die. It's as simple as that.
Any other supposed goals are a means to that ultimate end; the destruction of industrial civilization around the world means the death of the vast majority of current humanity. They know this - you should too. Every single smaller goal of environmentalism is consistent with that ultimate goal; do not be deluded into thinking that environmentalism is about improving your life or any human life.
"Environmentalism is not about a desire to have cleaner water and air. It is now a full-fledged religion, and its main tenet is "raw nature" as god-like, and Mankind as a plague infecting it. If you support environmentalism, the fact is that you're supporting an ideology that promotes the destruction of Mankind - and concretely, that includes yourself and everyone you care about."
[....]
Forrest M. Mims III reports on a talk given at the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science, 3-5 March 2006, by a University of Texas evolutionary biologist, Dr. Eric R. Pianka. "One of Pianka's earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, 'What good are you?' Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, 'We're no better than bacteria!' ... Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number. ... Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets. AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, 'We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.' With his slide of human skulls towering on the screen behind him, Professor Pianka was deadly serious."
http://www.environmentalism.com/
I don't recall that you've written about Manes. I do that. He writes as an advocate about Earth First!, the eco-terrorist group.
You're right. I did write about that guy, but I had forgotten his name.
Post a Comment