At one point, James Delingpole says about the Tories, “What you have is this kind of jellyfish party which doesn’t really have any particular political viewpoint other than it would quite like people to vote for it.” Sounds a lot like another party we know.
Dennis Miller interviews James Delingpole here on his book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. That’s me talking to Delingpole at the 12:00 mark.
Advance Warning: EPA Plans to Implement Sustainability Model for American Economy at Rio Conference June 2011
The Environmental Protection Agency, the last time I checked a regulatory body charged only with enforcing legislation, is “deliberating” on expanding its own powers through the Rio Conference scheduled to be held in June 2011. That’s right, a government agency filled with unelected bureaucrats is effectively deciding whether or not it wants to make law and expand its own powers, all in the name of promoting “sustainability.”
All of the FOIA files involved in the leak of Climategate II were taken from taxpayer-funded computers and thus were privy to Freedom of Information Act request. But apparently the “consensus” is concerned that the files’ exposure to the light of day might prove fatal to ManBearPig.
From The Examiner:
I [Christopher Horner] have seen apparent proof that the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, is working with United Kingdom police to pursue the leaker of the 2009 and 2011 “Climategate” emails.
I have learned that last week DOJ sent a search-and-seizure letter to the host of three climate-change “skeptic” blogs. Last night, UK police raided a blogger’s home and removed computers and equipment.
Cheburashka, a Soviet children’s show from the 1970s, is beloved by Russians for its cute innocence and by the Soviet state for its instruction in proletarian values. The main character, a furry little creature, is still popular and was recently selected as the Russian Olympics mascot.
This video excerpt shows the crocodile Gena finding out about a dirty factory, and subsequently, demanding it be cleaned up. This is not malignant in and of itself. But it does show the stirrings of the false narrative that the state can protect the people from the ‘productive contamination’ of industry.
This campaign ad regarding Obama’s slimy relations with Solyndra shows what it will take to destroy the administration’s flagging reputation come next November. Hammer the president on his failed policies, rampant corruption, and broken promises. We need to fund such ads on different subjects and slowly but steadily assault the Democrats with them until election day. Keep it fresh, mix up the subjects, and don’t overdo it. We don’t want to get tuned out.
Must-read: Obama’s Green Initiatives: It Pays (Big) to Be an Obama Bundler by Peter Schweitzer
The environmentalist movement is growing madder by the day. Spurned by the majority of the public despite unrelenting waves of statist propaganda, the eco-fascist consorts at the Durban, South Africa climate conference have deemed themselves the Mad Ludwigs to take over the planet and enslave us all to a high envirowacko council.
It’s unclear how other people are going to react, but it’s one thing to be yoked by tyrants who won’t bullshit you, it’s quite another thing to be bridled by an openly brazen pack of international grifters. The truth has got its pants on regarding these totalitarian scam artists’ pack of lies, and it’s fast catching up. Let’s run.
DURBAN, South Africa — “No high hopes for Durban.” “Binding treaty unlikely.” “No deal this year.” Thus ran the headlines. The profiteering UN bureaucrats here think otherwise. Their plans to establish a world government paid for by the West on the pretext of dealing with the non-problem of “global warming” are now well in hand. As usual, the mainstream media have simply not reported what is in the draft text which the 194 states parties to the UN framework convention on climate change are being asked to approve.
Behind the scenes, throughout the year since Cancun, the now-permanent bureaucrats who have made highly-profitable careers out of what they lovingly call “the process” have been beavering away at what is now a 138-page document. Its catchy title is “Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention — Update of the amalgamation of draft texts in preparation of [one imagines they mean ‘for’] a comprehensive and balanced outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its seventeenth session: note by the Chair.” In plain English, these are the conclusions the bureaucracy wants.
The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call “transparent impenetrability”, are not just off the wall – they are lunatic.
- Ø A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.
- Ø “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.
- Ø “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years’ data from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.
- Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.
- Ø A new global temperature target will aim, Canute-like, to limit “global warming” to as little as 1 C° above pre-industrial levels. Since temperature is already 3 C° above those levels, what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in today’s temperatures. This would take us halfway back towards the last Ice Age, and would kill hundreds of millions. Colder is far more dangerous than warmer.
- Ø The new CO2 emissions target, for Western countries only, will be a reduction of up to 50% in emissions over the next eight years and of “more than 100%” [these words actually appear in the text] by 2050. So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains. Back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your caves. Windmills, solar panels and other “renewables” are the only alternatives suggested in the draft. There is no mention of the immediate and rapid expansion of nuclear power worldwide to prevent near-total economic destruction.
- Ø The new CO2 concentration target could be as low as 300 ppmv CO2 equivalent (i.e., including all other greenhouse gases as well as CO2 itself). That is a cut of almost half compared with the 560 ppmv CO2 equivalent today. It implies just 210 ppmv of CO2 itself, with 90 ppmv CO2 equivalent from other greenhouse gases. But at 210 ppmv, plants and trees begin to die. CO2 is plant food. They need a lot more of it than 210 ppmv.
- Ø The peak-greenhouse-gas target year – for the West only – will be this year. We will be obliged to cut our emissions from now on, regardless of the effect on our economies (and the lack of effect on the climate).
- Ø The West will pay for everything, because of its “historical responsibility” for causing “global warming”. Third-world countries will not be obliged to pay anything. But it is the UN, not the third-world countries, that will get the money from the West, taking nearly all of it for itself as usual. There is no provision anywhere in the draft for the UN to publish accounts of how it has spent the $100 billion a year the draft demands that the West should stump up from now on.
The real lunacy comes in the small print – all of it in 8-point type, near-illegibly printed on grubby, recycled paper. Every fashionable leftist idiocy is catered for.
Read the rest at Climate Depot.
According to environmental alarmists, man is increasingly in danger of being killed by manmade climate change due to increasing hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, raining kittens, heatwaves, cold spells, zombie waves, droughts, floods, volcanoes, vampire bat scourges, plagues, locusts, pestilence, meteor strikes, super-ebola, giant racoons, the return of the dinosaurs, killer bees, pig flu, avian flu, platypus flu, unusually mild temperatures, and death itself.
A study released by the Reason Foundation, which obviously must be in the bag for the international petroleum conspiracy to sell people gas and other useful products, shows that according to public records, death due to “extreme weather” is down. Way down.
How far down is it?
The Reason Foundation report chronicles the number of worldwide deaths caused by extreme weather events between 1900 and 2010 and finds global deaths caused by extreme weather events peaked in the decade running from 1920 to 1929, when there were 241 deaths a year per million people in the world. From 1930 to 1939 there were 208 deaths a year per million people. But from 2000 to 2010 there were just 5.4 deaths a year per million people in the world. That’s a 98 percent decline in the weather-related death rate since the 1920s. Extreme weather events were responsible for just .07% of the world’s deaths between 2000 and 2010.
The extreme weather categories studied in the Reason Foundation report include droughts, floods, wildfires, storms (hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, typhoons, etc.) and extreme temperatures, both hot and cold.
Oh. But at least there’s still the danger of raining kittens.
Even when said half in jest, you get a glimpse into the eco-left’s warped thinking.
Just when you thought the environmental left couldn’t be any more demoralized, publicly humiliated, exposed, debunked, and marginalized, here is the latest scam from the United Nations, fronted by none other than the rogue Obama regime:
President Obama’s team of negotiators at the United Nations Climate Change Conference may agree to a tax on foreign currency transactions, designed to pay for a “Green Climate Fund,” that would fall disproportionately on American travellers and businesses, according to a group attending the conference that is skeptical of the UN position on global warming.
Negotiators at the conference are considering “a new tax on every foreign currency transaction in the world,” according to the Center for a Constructive Alternative (CFACT). “Every time you travel abroad, you’ll have to pay a climate tax,” explains CFACT, the group that released the “Climategate” emails. “More importantly, every time we import goods, every time we export our fine products (think jobs) we will do so with a climate tax skimming off the top.”
A tax on foreign currency exchanges would do nothing to curb manmade greenhouse emissions, but it would fatten the wallets of international banksters, the Islamist dictators and socialist thugs who run the UN, and the cronies of the Obama administration (namely, Goldman Sachs and other financial supporters who would seek to turn a buck on the scheme).
When a government seeks to profit in terms of money and control over human beings based on intensive propaganda, it should make every sane individual pause what the underlying motives are.
If eco-extremists are not able to see that governments who prop up the manmade global warming would incur a dangerous degree of power by implementing more stringent environmental regulations, and it disturbs them not the environmental damage that might be inflicted, then maybe, just maybe it would raise a few greenies’ eyebrows that a burgeoning international banking cartel spearheaded by the UN, and backed by U.S. President Barack Obama, would stand to make out like bandits by implementing a scheme based on foreign currency transactions and justified by manmade global warming.
And it should also stand to reason that when the UN proclaims that the “cost” of manmade climate change is in the realm of $72 trillion, it means to collect.
When will environmental leftists in the general public realize they are being played for fools by a power-hungry, and by no means benevolent, elite?
Probably never. But the general public needs to become more alert to the eco-left’s scheming, which is becoming increasingly less nuanced, and increasingly brazen.
The mainstream media scam artists are at it again. The envirowackos'”sky is falling” narrative is growing ever more unpersuasive by the year, so they have to constantly push the meme that we are getting closer to Apocalypse. The most recent example is an article claiming that human beings emitted 9 billion tons of CO2 last year, as if that is cause for alarm.
Let’s put aside the facts that carbon dioxide is a trace gas, and that it comprises just 390.31 parts per million of the atmosphere, (Oh my Gore, look at the huge letters!), and that carbon dioxide is a little over 3% of the greenhouse effect, and that man contributes about 3% of that total (making man’s contribution about 1/357 of the greenhouse effect, no matter how you chop, dice it, or slice it).
Then if we keep in mind the 9 billion figure, how big is the earth’s atmosphere? Why, it’s 5 quadrillion metric tons of matter! That may not seem like much to today’s Washington politicians, who are used to dealing in debt figures in the trillions, but it’s an awful lot bigger than a billion. How much bigger?
In scientific computation, a billion is 109 and a quadrillion is 1015.
Let’s flesh this out a bit, with a little help from another site. The question is, “How many metric tons are in one parts per million of carbon dioxide. Here is how the poster runs his computation:
I’ve seen various sources for the mass of the atmosphere ranging from around 5×10^18 to 5.3×10^18 kg, so the value of 5.27×10^10 kg seems to be right on. The key is that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere (383ppm or 0.0383%) is given as a percentage by volume. To determine the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere, you have to convert the percentage by volume to the percentage by mass.
To do this, you need to look at the molecular mass of each of the gasses that make up the atmosphere. The main ones are Nitrogen (N2,) Oxygen (O2,) Argon (Ar,) and Carbon Dioxide (C02.) Take a look at the link to the molecular mass of air below, and you will see that if you multiply the percentage of each gas in air by the molecular mass of that gas, you will get the molecular mass of each gas in air. It also shows the total molecular mass of air to be 28.97kg/kmol. If we move the value of %CO2 they use to 0.000383 (383ppmv) we find the molecular mass of CO2 in air to be 0.017kg/kmol. To determine the percent by mass of CO2 in air we divide 0.017/28.97 and find that CO2 is 0.0587% of air by mass.
If you multiply the total mass of earth’s atmosphere by the % mass of CO2 in the atmosphere we find, 5.27×10^18kg x 0.0587% = 3.09×10^15kg of CO2 are currently in the atmosphere (using 383ppmV.) [outdated figure, ed].
Therefore the kg of CO2 in 1ppm of the atmosphere would be 3.09×10^15/383 = 8.08×10^12 kg or approximately 8 Billion metric tons of CO2.
Therefore, in 2010, man contributed a little over one parts per million carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which is now 391 ppm. But does that mean we are on a straight crash course to disaster?
Wait, the warming effect of carbon dioxide isn’t even linear, it’s logarithmic! What does that mean? That added carbon dioxide has a diminishing warming effect.
Don’t worry, Chicken Little. The
global warming climate change alarmists are full of hot air once again.
After reviewing several of the Climategate II emails, I have come to the conclusion that they speak for themselves. Many of the researchers involved do little or any hiding of their agenda. Most of the emails are readily intelligible for the average educated reader, and so the best advice one can give is to read some of them yourself.
The initial emails set the flavor for the rest to follow. A few examples below.
From FOIA11 Files
“Jonathan and I [R. Warren] have already talked about this (and he told me about what happened at the meeting regarding economic modelling) and agreed that I need to develop a relationship with DEFRA and get involved in some (but not all) of the meetings we have with DEFRA. That is, we’ve agreed that I need to be at the really key stakeholder meetings like this one, and to meet occasionally with key (potential!) stakeholders like DEFRA. i.e. that in order to make good decisions about the flagship project, I need to have contact and visibility with key stakeholders. “
Bonafide Republican James Inhofe pens an article published an article Obama’s Job-Killing Global Warming Agenda pointing out the collapse pf the Kyoto treaty. So why is the Obama administration
eating beating a dead horse?
With little attention and fanfare, the United Nations kicked off its latest global-warming conference – this time in Durban, South Africa. Their mission: to extend the Kyoto Protocol. But as Bloomberg reports, Japan, Russia and Canada will not renew their commitments, and, of course, the United States will never sign on without commitments from China and India. The Kyoto process is essentially dead– and even President Obama is acknowledging it, much to the chagrin of his left-wing environmental base.
The troubling question therefore is why is President Obama still determined to implement extremely expensive, job-killing domestic global-warming regulations through his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), especially as we struggle with a weak economy? Even Lisa Jackson, the head of the Obama EPA has admitted that the United States acting alone would have no impact on the climate. Now with the complete collapse of the Kyoto process, there is no question that Obama’s global-warming regulations would be all pain for no climate gain.
Over the past decade, we succeeded in defeating the global-warming cap-and-trade agenda in Congress, which would have destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs and caused electricity prices to “skyrocket.” President Obama understands that the American people have caught on to the economic damage that his agenda would cause, so he is trying to implement it under the radar. Therefore, our mission now must be to stop him from achieving through regulation what he could not achieve through legislation.
Read the rest of the article here.
Outstanding read from columnist Rachel Marsden on the ecofascist scheming at the Durban, South Africa “Environmental Summit”:
Global leaders are set to meet in Durban, South Africa, from November 28th until December 9th, in an attempt to figure out how to continue their global fight against “climate change” when the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period ends in 2012. As someone currently sitting here in the dark with the heat off, perhaps they’d permit me the temporary moral authority to offer a few suggestions for their agenda.
* Don’t waste any time fiddling with the planet’s thermostat. So the big achievement of the previous summit in Cancun was agreeing that the Earth’s temperature must not be permitted to increase by 2 percent? Look, I’ve been in European gyms with air conditioning that can’t even be controlled within the space of a few thousand square feet, despite regular intervention by head-scratching specialists. Usually the excuse is that the “ceiling is too high”. Well guess what, fools? The Earth’s ceiling is really, really high. Give it up already and move on to something you can realistically control.
* Nuclear energy is the future. Nuclear energy: good. Nuclear bomb: bad. It’s that simple. Now can we move on to a less silly debate? Oh, you say you’re worried about a nuclear energy facility going all Chernobyl on you? While you’re at it, why don’t you also avoid getting your hair cut for fear the hairdresser will stab you in the eye with the scissors while trimming your bangs? The odds are about the same for both. Great Britain has already found out what happens when nuclear is replaced by much dirtier coal: the prices go up and no one is any happier. Speaking of which…
* Imposing green alternatives almost always results in dirtier ones. For example, when I go to the supermarket and am told the plastic bags cost money, it isn’t ever going to force me to carry my own bags around. I’ll always pay the extra money and tolerate the cashier’s dirty looks in exchange for the Earth-murdering plastic bags, which I will then recycle as garbage bags at home before throwing them in the trash where they will then hopefully be recycled by a pigeon who will recoup them from the dump and use them in a nest or maybe even as a stylish necklace. The day enviro-fascists succeed in removing those bags from stores and I’m expected to carry my own, I will then rely on grocery delivery – meaning a gas-guzzling truck will deliver my groceries and someone will carry them to my door in bags or boxes. [Continued…]
This is how everyone on the right should be writing about the ecowackos. No political correctness, no holds barred, just slam the greeniacs for the sick, twisted totalitarians that they are. Marsden is cute, laid back, and has a savage pen. Keep an eye on her in the future, she could be an up-and-comer. Speaking of which, more coming forth on Climategate II later this week. Stay tuned.
Sometimes the holiday season does come early. For the Green Grinches intent on stealing our freedom, along with a whole lot of our dough, a bevy of swiped email gifts being dubbed Climategate II released near midnight the 21st promise a different kind of Cyber Monday for the multi-billion dollar climate fraud industry.
Among the Who-pudding and roast beast is a feast of political-scientific incest exposing the lucrative business of warm-mongering. The examples are many, but a sit down with a cup of coffee and an eye to examining the political assumptions behind the climate “science” can be revelatory for even the non-specialist (like all of those lawyers and rights activists who participated in the first IPCC).
This shouldn’t be much of a surprise, considering that even an esteemed organization like the Union of Concerned Scientists (remember “nuclear winter,” anyone?), while commenting on the significance of the IPCC, blatantly confesses that politics is involved in much of the climate “science” being produced:
Just when you thought the news couldn’t get any more absurd on the green energy front, there comes word that the Obama administration’s Department of Energy authorized a loan to a steel firm. From Russia.
Russian billionaire Alexei Mordashov, ranked in the top 50 on Forbes’ wealthiest people in the world at around $19 billion net worth, applied to the DOE for a green subsidy to assist with Government Motors manufacturing. And Obama had no problem paying him. With other people’s money.
Mordashov, the CEO of Severstal, controls nearly 82% of the firm’s shareholder capital. Recently, Severstal sold other assets in the U.S. to shift production to Michigan, drawing out even further questions regarding the loan’s necessity and thus, political motivation.
The giant Russian firm Severstal was awarded the contract to revamp the dilapidated Rouge steel mill in Dearborn, Michigan, home of huge out-of-control unions and big-mouthed communist millionaires. Specifically, the firm’s subsidiary Severstal North America, the fourth largest steel producer in the country, is in charge of executing the contract.
While business publications are concentrating on the economics of the exchange, arguing that it was an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money, we need to take a more concentrated look at the ethics.
Green energy subsidies are grotesque in and of themselves, and there is no excuse for them at all. Ever. The market will allocate scarce resources using pricing guided by demand and supply, which makes all the green hysteria about running out of resources obsolete. In other words, the currently cost-uncompetitive green technologies could become competitive, eventually, regardless of what happens to our precious planet.
Whether or not there was a market demand, why is the government trying to fill it? Why is our government loaning our money to foreign firms and governments? Since when did the U.S. government itself become an investment bank?
Since green energy arrived on the scene, that’s when. If we don’t so something serious about rebuffing environmentalism, our country will be completely subverted by foreign governments and corrupt politicians.
The Severstal case is just one of many more to come, especially if the Democrats remain in charge.
As posted on Political Crush.
Scorching new evidence of the environmental left’s scientific obstruction has surfaced in the squelching of reports of Japanese satellite data, which suggest that the underdeveloped world emits far more carbon dioxide than previously imagined, even more than many Western nations! If the claim is substantiated, it could turn the entire meme that industrialized civilization is endangering the planet on its head.
When John O’Sullivan, a climate non-dogmatist, discovered the data and published an article on Suite 101, he was immediately fired and his posts removed for the last two years. Of course, the enviroleft is going to say that is because his article was so absurd. But isn’t it the point of the scientific method that if one can falsify a theory, one does so using transparent, replicable methods and publishes the findings in open, apolitical, peer-reviewed journals? In other words, if his findings are so ridiculous, isn’t it the job of the climate dogmatists to point out why?
Simply disagreeing with the results of a study doesn’t make the data, or the questions, go away. If the underdeveloped world is emitting more CO2 than the Western world, then what need would there be for global redistribution of wealth based on the presumption that carbon emissions are “destroying the planet” and causing catastrophic “climate change”? What would the findings tell us about the unfounded hysteria surrounding the argument that man’s activities are warming the planet? And furthermore, wouldn’t they also suggest that the environmentalist movement has thus far been politics first, science second?
There is no place for censorship in the scientific community, or in Western civilization as a whole. When the “consensus” wants to shut somebody up, that’s because it has something to hide. Fortunately for us, there are ways to get around censorship, but expect it to get even more heavy-handed as the manmade global warming fraud gets increasingly exposed.
The most important conclusion one could take away from the data, if proved accurate, is that the West’s better health and living standards are no accident, and the industry that makes it possible is no danger to mankind as a whole. Industrial society would rightfully be restored as an overall benefit to human health, rather than a supposed global scourge.
Americans are being put in strait jackets by lunatics who are running the asylum. They are causing our country to relatively decline and our enemies to relatively incline. It is inexplicable why the ecotard left is out building such a wheelchair ramp for our nation’s adversaries to roll into our country, extract our wealth, sell us the petroleum that Americans won’t produce, and handicap the energy sector so that we are no longer a globally dominant power.
There’s nothing noble about eroding a people’s self-sufficiency, either on a personal or national scale. What it means in practice is that if someone or some country doesn’t like something, he, she or it is powerless to change it. And powerless is what America will be if it relies on windmills and waterwheels to energize its advanced economy.
Thus when word breaks that America leads the world in the volume of its energy reserves, the truly stupid and self-defeating nature of the eco-left is thrown into even greater compact fluorescent light. Unlike people who have a reason not to see the error of their ways, like those unfortunately born with a mental disability or who have incurred brain damage, the irredeemable “dane bramage” of environmentalists, to steal a phrase from Bill Cosby, is so glaring that we may need to commit the green movement to get them out of our way.
When I call for the eco-left to be “committed,” I don’t mean they they should become zealous crusaders who will stop at nothing until they get their way. They already are that and more. I mean that they should be institutionalized and deprogrammed of their sick, self-destructive delusions and reoriented towards economic reality and feeling for their fellow man. Human beings come before inanimate objects like “the planet” or imaginary deities like Mother Gaia. This is so self-evident it hardly requires further comment.
There is no impending apocalypse because we burn fossil fuels. How many decades the charade is going to go on before the greeniacs get the hint they’re being played for fools is a Scooby Doo worthy mystery. Environmentalists should take the “mental” out of their movement and rediscover what it means to be sane. Stop believing in Chicken Little fairy tales. And stop handicapping the country before you enviromorons cause a real catastrophe.
As posted on Political Crush.
In terms of the general instincts of humanity in Western civilization, it might be said that people fall into two groups: those whose worldview can best be described as static, and those whose mindset is oriented towards progress. Although the enviroleft has commandeered the political self-descriptor “progressive,” an examination of its views in the abstract leads to the conclusion that its preoccupation is towards returning mankind towards an imagined homeostasis or equilibrium; and as they put it themselves, a state of balance, harmony, or sustainability.
From the left’s point of view, civilization itself is a threat. The economic foundations of industrial capitalist society, production and development, are seen as hostile, aggressive, and excessive. The competitive aspect of such an economy is readily transmuted to social darwinist theories and condemned as predatory and exploitative. Their conceptualization is holistic and thus inescapably totalitarian, despite any good intentions for “humanity,” a cause that abstracts away particular human beings.
In this mindset, all transactions are viewed in zero-sum terms; equilibrium is seen as the equal distribution of resources in perpetuity, regardless of individual input. Their abstract point of view is superimposed on reality; the free will of persons is ignored or not computed into the social engineer’s equations, and it is always inexplicable why people do not readily fit into the elegantly rational template of communism. They think as if individuals are inanimate objects devoid of agency, frustrating their plans for the perfect society when they act on their own, and thus provoking the social planners’ animus.
The left’s perception is also informed by some specific psychological predispositions. First, a feeling of insecurity in the face of an unpredictable society, to which they feel alienated. Second, a feeling of insignificance, which may be reinforced by atheism, and is salved only by feeling part of the general collective of humanity. Third, a hostility and disdain for those in mankind who they feel do not understand them; and a resulting sense of arrogance, hostility, and lack of scruples towards manipulating the masses. This feeds their intellectual dishonesty. To sum, they have an inferiority complex, and their solution is to drag the rest of mankind down to their level, while absolving themselves from their own theories.
By extension, they believe the majority of mankind are incapable of taking care of themselves, and needing the assistance of the state to rectify their material deprivation. They seek to establish a baseline of existence shared by humanity; and thus they do not see the problem of impoverished societies that the state does not allow or encourage people to lift themselves up, but rather that the profits of the productive, innovative, and ingenious of the West are somehow grotesque, and that our rich are luxuriating at others’ expense. They do not grasp that individuals have some control over their own destinies, for the conceptual and psychological reasons mentioned, and therefore they infantalize the perceived victims of their targeted interest. Their fantasized self-importance remedies the gaping void in their existence, leading them to fanaticism in defense of the perceived wronged, whom they are constantly inventing to fuel their energies, zeal, and charity- and state-subsidized industry.
Thus environmentalism is the theoretical archtype encompassing the left’s holistic worldview and the manifestation of its belittling evaluation of humanity. It is a crusade to save humanity from itself, and a projection of the left’s desired condition of an idle and self-sustaining homeostasis, which it terms “progress” (away from the mad world of productivity, aggression, and war, which they intermix as extensions of the same enterprise). If one traces the word stasis back to its Greek roots, it means both a neutral state of affairs, and revolution.
Stasis is death for mankind, since life itself requires productivity and growth; and the demoralizing effects of socialism in its various forms are social decay, existential despair, and mass homicide. Such is the inevitable fate of those who embrace environmentalism in its pristine dogmatic exposition, and attempt to engender progress by deconstructing human civilization.
As originally posted on Political Crush.
Big Green wants you to believe that the environmentalist movement is as pristine as the wind-driven snows of ANWR when it comes to its advocacy of manmade climate change theory. Meanwhile, all those unscientific “skeptics”on the right are simply propagandists and paid hacks for corporate oil & gas giants.
Prepare for a narrative buster.
The climate skeptic blog Watts Up With That has parodied a recent NY Times piece mapping the financing of paid opposition to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, also known as Manmade Climate Change (MMCC).
The Watts graphic, which must be seen to be believed, shows the incestuous relationship of government, environmentalist groups, universities, and research institutes in the green business racket, which has been spouting apocalyptic justifications for crypto-fascism for at least two decades while raking in around $79 billion. Greenpeace and other environmentalist groups complain about paid opposition to MMCC running in the hundreds of millions.
The NY Times article purports there is an “echo chamber” between media, politicians, and blogs driving popular disbelief or apathy towards MMCC. The fact that the NY Times is an influential publication whose headlines and narratives are picked up and expanded on by hundreds of media outlets, mostly left-leaning, apparently doesn’t strike the author as ironic. [Continued on Political Crush]