"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George WaldHmmm, anybody notice how wildly off these predictions were? It seems that even learned Ivy League 'scientists' can't deal with anything more complicated than a straight line as far as trends are concerned. Temperatures are getting colder, therefore temperatures will continue to get colder unless we do something drastic. Temperatures are getting warmer, therefore temperatures will continue to get warmer...yadayada, populations are increasing, therefore...
"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
"Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich
"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
"In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine
"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich
"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
"[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
In fairness, pollution levels have fallen greatly since I was a kid both in the air and in the water. I remember flying around the Puget Sound in the '70's with my dad and always seeing a yellow fog over Seattle. Going to LA and getting a headache from air pollution. Catching deformed and diseased flounder in the Puget Sound. I do think that government regulation is primarily responsible for solving these things.
But, still notice that many of the same people are still making predictions that have no more foundation in facts than those were back in 1970, when eco-consciousness was first really forced on America.
These predictions illustrate what a joke the environmental movement and more specifically the notion of man-made global warming or climate change is from the perspective of science. But the EM and belief in AGW is not about science or about saving the environment. It is a political movement. And looking at the EM and AGW from this perspective, they have been extremely successful as a means to advance political objectives. One of my first post on this blog was about how one of the founders of the EM left it after he realized that communist moved into the EM after the fall of the Berlin wall and were using it to advance political objectives. From polls that I have seen nearly half of Americans belief in the notions put forward by the EM.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the notions put forward by the EM has absolutely no basis in science and is still taught in school textbooks and politicians are still saying that we must combat it should really make you think about what the true purpose of the EM is. Think about it. There is no basis in science for what the EM puts forward. Rather the data has been manipulated by scientist. Yet it is still rammed down Americas throat through the education system, media, and politicians; and Americans are told that we must combat climate change or whatever environmental disaster awaits us by giving up our freedom, reducing our standard of living, redistributing our wealth to poorer nations, allowing the government a larger sphere of influence in the economic sphere and our personal lives, and overall give up more power to the government. This is the true purpose of the EM and it has worked marvelously. I am in amazement at the brilliance of the EM as to how it uses the human need to feel important to get people to believe in a crisis that has no basis in reality and motivates people to sacrifice themselves and their quality of life to combat this crisis. It will go down as one of the greatest hoax and political tactic in human history.
At the core of the EM is an anti-life philosophy that demands literal human sacrifice as in the case of the DDT ban which resulted in the literal deaths of millions of humans and a sacrifice in our quality of life to please mother nature. In this sense, the EM is a new variation of the old pagan religions that worshiped mother nature and sacrificed humans on the alter to please mother nature. This anti-life aspect of the EM is a subcategory of a much larger anti-life philosophy which is the one put forward by the Devil. The EM is straight from Satan and is demonic.
I think AGW and the whole "Starvation" thing are silly. But environmental awareness is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteThere are things that individuals can do that can drastically help the environment and not hinder our lifestyles. For example: turn off your lights when you leave a room, return your oil to the parts store or just get it done at jiffy lube, design impermeable surfaces to drain in to bioswales (the ground), reuse water bottles, etc. All of these types of things are cost effective for the individual and the gov't (taxpayers). Not to mention, the environment looks better.
Not all environmentalism is evil. Only the big kind.
"The battle to save the planet will replace the battle over ideology as the organizing theme of the new world order." The EM is also a way that the elites in the world desire to bring about their fantasy of a one world government or global governance as evidenced by the words of those who are the big pushers of this lie and the policies needed to battle this lie. " Leading the charge is none other than former Vice President Al Gore, who declared in July 2009 that the congressional climate bill will help bring about 'global governance.' U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also trumpeted the concept in an Oct. 25, 2009, New York Times oped. 'A [climate] deal must include an equitable global governance structure,' he wrote." [...] Gore and the U.N.’s call for '
ReplyDelete'global governance' echoes former French President Jacques Chirac’s call in 2000. On Nov. 20, 2000, then-President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol represented 'the first component of an authentic global governance.'" http://www.wnd.com/2009/10/114197/
People should use the natural resources in a wise and careful way and not destroy the environment, but this is not what environmentalism is about. The EM uses people like you and their desire to do common sense things to preserve and use the environment to help push through their demonic political agenda. The sad fact is that a majority or near majority of Americans believe in the need to combat AGW and climate change.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen 000039x says "people like you", I am assuming he means the liberal RTPs readers.
ReplyDeleteThere are cost effective measures that can be taken in order to preserve wildlife. These have nothing to do with Climate Change.
If you talk about Environmentalism as if it is all encompassed by the demonic agenda, then you are being ignorant of the facts. You will begin to have tunnel vision on the issue. Of course most legislation takes an unbalanced and impractical approach. However, it is important to remember that environmentalism does not need to be stigmatized as a bad thing. I can be a fiscally conservative environmentalist Christian if I want to. It does not mean that I am affected by or support the "EM".
Environmentalism is not about the things that you support such as using natural resources wisely, turning off lights in rooms that you are not in, and other common sense things. People that do support these things are unknowingly supporting the radical agenda of today's environmentalism by helping to give legitimacy to the radical EM. I would not call myself an environmentalist. I can not think of one common sense environmental piece of legislation that is or has been proposed in a long time.
ReplyDeleteIt's very complicated, because of the nature of liberals to take an issue or a crisis and run with it as hard and far as they can. Like I said, air and water quality in the west has improved dramatically since I was a kid. I don't believe this would have happened without government regulation and this improvement is a good thing. When I was a kid, most people still just tossed trash out the window of their car or whatever, that kind of thing. There was a lot of litter. Anti-littering propaganda certainly turned the tide on that. The personal responsibility people take regarding litter is a good thing and would not have happened without government making littering a socially bad thing to do.
ReplyDeleteBut liberals take these nice things and push harder to reduce the quality of life of Americans, because they are embarrassed of it, being the pussies that they are, and because they want to control Americans in their pathetic little quest for little big man power and make big issues out of things that have no justification for it -most notably nowadays, carbon dioxide emissions- to turn us into lots of Modest Mice. Just like them.
The first reaction of a conservative to attempts at environmental regulation should be severe skepticism, but enough of an open mind to at least listen to the arguments and justifications an environmentalist is presenting for doing something. Coal plants do belch a lot of carbon dioxide and other nastiness. What, if any, level of emission control do they have? Should they be regulated out of existence? Should they be able to burn coal without any environmental filtering? What's the right balance? Unfortunately, the majority of environmentalists nowadays will put the pedal to the metal and go for the most extreme solution possible, building up governmental power, which they love, and tearing down personal independence and self-sufficiency, which they hate.
It could be argued that the government was not needed to improve water and air quality and to force people to not litter. The enablers of pollution, for example by a chemical plant pouring waste into a river, was lack of well defined private property and the enforcement of the rights of private property owners. It is called the tragedy of the commons. It is not needed for the government to confisicate vast swaths of American land to preserve nature nor is it needed for the government to expand its powers and enact onerous regluations to pervent pollution. All that is needed is well defined private property and the protection of these property rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you said, but I think you fail to understand the true nature of the EM and how the EM is being used to advance political agendas that are completely unrelated to the environment. This is very dangerous because if you can't identify the enemy then you are incapable of defeating them. One of the early founders environmentalism Patrick Moore said that after the fall of the Berlin wall communist moved into the EM. You see, before the fall of the Berlin wall communist were in the peace movement which had nothing to do with peace. It was about defeating America which it helped to do during the Vietnam War. (A NV general said that without the American peace they could not have won.) Does that mean that everybody in the peace movement was a communist and trying to defeat America? No. A lot of hippies were "useful idiots" that were being used to advance the political and military goals of the Soviet Union. Today the people that want clear air and water and who want to turn lights off are being used to advance a political agenda of the global elite that want usher in some one-world socialist utopia. Once the BW fell, the communist had to move to a new place. This new place was the EM as made clear by Patrick Moore: "Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their Eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments." http://robinsontalkingpoints.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html
Van Jones who was one of Obama's advisors was explicit how he was using the green movement to advance communism: "green is the new red" as in communist red. The remarks given by Al Gore and other globalist globalist and especially the U.N which is using the EM to advance openly communist objectives of eliminating free enterprise and private property through agenda 21. These facts make it very clear as to what the true goal of the EM is about. Sure the vast majority of hippies think it is about saving the fisheie poos and air and water and the cute little green faires flying around in the forest and mother earth and trees and beautiful nature; but they are being used as a tool to advance other's political agenda of bigger government, a smaller private sector, the destruction of free enterprise, and the establishment of a one-world socialist utopia. Wake up.