Liberation from Environmentalism

I’ve really had it with the cult of Eco-Tyranny

Remember “Global Cooling”?

Posted by Tom Stelene on September 12, 2008

Today’s global warming hysteria is an unimaginative re-hashing of the global cooling hysteria from decades prior. Here is a “cool”🙂 video on it.

Posted in environmentalism | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

A Crisis “Twice as Bad as Predicted”

Posted by Tom Stelene on September 12, 2008

I just found some really bad news. This article begins:

The ozone layer, which protects living things from the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays, has been depleted in many areas of the globe, and at the latitudes of the United States the loss is proceeding more than twice as fast as scientists had expected, the Environmental Protection Agency announced yesterday.

It goes on to state:

The weakened ozone shield lets in more ultraviolet light, a cause of skin cancer. According to agency calculations based on the new ozone findings, over the next 50 years about 12 million Americans will develop skin cancer, and more than 200,000 of them will die. These would be in addition to the more than 8,000 deaths a year now caused by skin cancer. Under previous assumptions, 500,000 added cancer cases and 9,300 fatalities were forecast from ozone depletion.

The article concludes:

Yesterday’s announcement raised alarms among environmentalists. The news “is very bad,” said Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, an atmospheric scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. “It means that over the next couple of decades, the level of ozone depletion could border on the disastrous, and it underscores the need to avoid taking risks with global life support systems like the ozone layer and also like the world’s climate,” he said.

Scary sounding stuff – from April 5, 1991!

Yup, them environmentalists sure know what they’re talking about with so much science on their side.

Posted in environmentalism | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

In Denial: S. Fred Singer

Posted by Tom Stelene on September 12, 2008

Scientist S. Fred Singer exposes the pseudo-science b.s. of the the U.N.’s IPCC, Al Gore, and James Hanson. The controversy, as Singer defines it, is between the followers of computer models (Gore and company) and those who follow the empirical data (the evil “deniers”). Singer’s brief presentation is devastating. Enjoy!

Posted in environmentalism, science | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Greens Protest Taking Them Seriously

Posted by Tom Stelene on September 12, 2008

A new kind of plant that stores carbon underground just opened in Germany.

While some power companies are promoting the technology as a green dream, interestingly many environmental groups are vocally opposing it.  Over 99 organizations in a group called the “Climate Alliance” invited protesters to the opening of the plant.  They say the technology is too unproven and CO2 separation also lowers plant efficiency to as little as 34 percent, from a typical efficiency of 44 percent.  Further, they say it will slow the adoption of alternative energy sources, lulling people into a false sense of security. [bold added]

Environmentalists oppose the carbon storage facility because “the technology is too unproven.” There comes a point, I would think, with at least some types of technologies, that they will have to remain “too unproven” until they can be actually used, employed, and applied in, at least, a restricted sense. After that, if it works, great – push forward with it; if not, then back to the drawing board. That, however, is not what the environmentalists can accept. Because the technology is “too unproven” they want to forbid using it to see if it can be further proven or even disproven. This means: because it is too unproven one cannot try to prove it.

Environmentalists have spent years scaring the world about the harm from too much carbon. They have been demanding we hurry up and develop the needed technology before it is too late. Now they oppose technology that is designed to faithfully serve their god, The Environment. Why? There is only one explanation: they are against technology as such, no matter what its use.

Their twisted minds do not stop there.

This technology causes a problem, they claim. Its use “will slow the adoption of alternative energy sources.” The technology in question is related to coal. What if their objection is broadened to include other energy sources? If we could create all the technology to accomodate our current energy sources to the standards of eco-purity, that has to also be unacceptable to them.

They have all along wanted “alternative energy sources” to be imposed on us. They could not say that openly, so they said our energy sources are causing numerous problems. Environmentalists were counting on us simply phasing out these allegedly problematic energy sources, not actually solving these problems, be they real or imagined. Now the environmentalists are hysterical because what is not “too unproven” by now is our ability to solve these problems and thus keep using our present energy sources. Talk about being thrown a curve ball!

Environmentalists cannot have it both ways – try though they might. Consider this from ARI’s Greens Against Renewable Energy:

The Bureau of Land Management has reportedly received more than 130 proposals to build solar power plants on federal lands in the Southwest. New transmission lines to carry the power from the sun-baked deserts to places where electricity users actually live are also under consideration.

However, the solar applications are mired in environmental impact studies, which one solar industry executive said “could completely stunt the growth of the industry.” And the plans for new transmission capacity are being ferociously protested by environmentalists decrying the “permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine public lands.”

According to Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Center: “This just shows the true objective of green activism. Environmentalists don’t actually want us to find alternative ways of producing energy; they want us to stop using energy altogether.

“The basic premise of environmentalism is to leave nature alone. Capturing and utilizing any source of energy–even ones that are supposedly green and renewable–will necessarily have some impact on nature, and will therefore inevitably be subject to environmentalist attacks and condemnation.

Look at where the environmentalists now stand. They are protesting both the use of new “eco-friendly” technology that they have been calling for, and the use of “eco-friendly” energy that they have also been calling for. Okay, dirt-worshippers, you are caught in a big contradiction of your own making.

I, for one, love seeing this! It looks like your game is up, dirt-worshippers. You can only perpetuate your eco-fraud on people for so long. Eventually reality catches up with it! The deceptions of environmentalism have forced environmentalists to now protest against their claims and ideas being taken seriously; a self-reductio ad absurdum of sorts! Their facade is finally crumbling and about to reveal what is underneath, namely, their vicious, man-hating, dirt-worshipping natures.

If it is any consolation, dirt-worshippers – I never took your claims and ideas seriously.🙂

Posted in environmentalism | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Environmentalism Is Media Hype

Posted by Tom Stelene on September 8, 2008

John Stossell at a conference debunking media GW-hype:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Who Says Environmentalism Is not a Religion?

Posted by Tom Stelene on September 8, 2008

I don’t think you’ll see this kind of performace at the Wailing Wall.

HT, gus van horn

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

When Global Warming Fails…

Posted by Tom Stelene on September 7, 2008

Oh no! Just when we thought the “world environmental crisis” couldn’t get any worser:

Oxygen Depletion: The Next Great Environmental Scare

Atmospheric oxygen levels are declining fast. Accompanied by scary graphs and even more frightening scenarios, the new environmental disaster of oxygen depletion seems poised to overtake the crumbling CO2 fright as the next great challenge to mankind’s survival.

The story is already making converts in the media, which includes Peter Tatchell of the U.K. Guardian, who recently ran a breathless story on possible consequences, including “genetic mutations, hormonal changes…cancer, degenerative diseases” and even death. 

Tatchell says the rate of decline has dramatically increased in the past 30 years.  He calls for immediate “scientific research” to examine the problem, blissfully unaware that several dozen researchers have been doing just that for decades.

The decline is predictably pinned on deforestation and mankind’s “burning of fossil fuels”. Once again, man is trashing the planet.

The author goes on to explain how this is more pseudo-science nonsense from the usual suspects:

So what is the source of this crackpot idea? It stems from the writings of interdisciplinary ex-professor Ervin Lazlo. Lazlo calls himself “the recognized founder of systems philosophy”, a New Age holistic pseudo-science that has unfortunately accomplished nothing useful since he created it 35 years ago.

Lazlo is the founder of the Club of Budapest, an environmental group which specializes in “planetary consciousness”. The group shares members and ideas with the Club of Rome best known for the “Limits to Growth” scare of the early 1970s. That led to a book of the same name, which became the best-selling environmental title of all time. The book was roundly called tripe by dozens of esteemed economists, and even later admitted to be nothing more than a caper to gain media attention — none of which seemed to hurt sales. Even today one can still find environmentalists still quoting the book’s conclusions as fact.

The environmental movement has a long history of promoting scare stories without a shred of scientific backing. From “Silent Spring” which predicted the global death of all bird life, to forest-demolishing acid rain, to more modern scares such as Alar and GM foods, the poor track record of success seems to only stimulate a never-ending stream of new drivel.

If one wanted to spoof environmentalism, “oxygen depletion” is the type of “crisis” one would think up to do so – but this is no spoof! They have begun peddling what could be a spoof of them! Perhaps it means they have good reason to be confident they can push this scare, as ridiculous as it is.

So people, how many more eco-scares, for how many more decades, do you have to go through before you finally learn to stop listening to these pathetic, power-lusting frauds? Your credulity is their most powerful weapon against you. If you had stopped believing them long ago they would be irrelevant now. 

How good that would be!

…”oxygen depletion” …it sounds like a plot from a comic book!

Posted in environmentalism, science | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

For the Sake of the Beaches, Drill

Posted by Tom Stelene on September 7, 2008

The altruism of environmentalists, of sacrificing man’s well-being to the alleged “good” of nature, is getting more bizarre.

How to Reduce Pollution by Drilling for Oil

According to Luyendyk, the amount of oil escaping naturally from just one set of seeps in the Santa Barbara channel is equal to about 42 thousand gallons a day — equal to an Exxon Valdez-size oil spill every 5 or 6 years.

The sheer size of the seepage has led to the formation of a new environmental group, called SOS California — which stands for Stop Oil Seeps. The group wants to lift the offshore drilling ban not to generate oil, but to reduce oil pollution from seepage. They point to university studies which demonstrate that extracting oil through drilling reduces reservoir pressure. That, in turn, reduces seepage. SOS advocates lifting the drilling ban for just that reason — to reduce oil pollution on local beaches.

Men should drill oil not for their own sake, but for the sake of beaches.

They have shown their true colors for all to see. SOS California admits they do not care about man’s needs and well-being (particularly his need to use natural enery sources) and his freedom to act to satisfy them; the imaginary “well-being” of beaches matters to them! If oil and gas seepage were not happening they sure as hell would not be advocating drilling.

(Hey – this answers my question in the previous post!)

Posted in environmentalism | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

The BS-inator

Posted by Tom Stelene on July 12, 2008

From Drudge is a good example of how environmentalists make distorted rationalizations to further their beliefs and agendas.

Complaining about the Bush administration not going along with the world’s global-warming fantasy, Gov. Schwarzenegger in an ABC interview said, “We don’t wait for other countries to do the same thing. That’s what makes America number one…”

Funny, wouldn’t that be ‘unilateralism,’ the alleged vice the world and leftists dislike America for? Unilateralism must be different somehow when it comes to The Environment, though.

But Schwarzenegger gets more ridiculous if we think about what he goes on to say. He said about the Bush administration and carbon dioxide that, “the Supreme Court had to tell them, ‘Yes, it is a pollutant.'”

So a gas naturally occurring in ocean water vaporization, photosynthesis, and respiration is a “pollutant” – because the Supreme Court said so!

My dictionary definition (Webster’s New World, 1960) of “pollute” is “to make unclean, impure, or corrupt; desecrate; defile; contaminate; dirty.” So a “pollutant,” therefore, does said things.

If CO2 is a global warming-pollutant then why do environmentalists stop us from cutting down trees? If trees are polluters, then they ought to be chopped down to prevent global-warming! Environmentalist policies are – by this logic – causing global warming! That of course, they would rationalize away as natural “CO2 pollution” which is just fine. If it is man-made it is bad, though, they would say. And you are supposed to accept that distinction as legitimate.

If what Arnold The BS-inator said is true, how does nature produce a pollutant? What are examples of naturally-occurring pollutants, pray tell? And how come we are not trying to eliminate them also? Something tells me not to expect those answers anytime soon!

Most important, if CO2 did cause warming, is calling it a “pollutant,” meaning, “something that makes unclean,” justified? How is warming “unclean” or “impure”?

It is not. That, however, does not matter to bullshitters. What matters to bullshitters is getting their audience to go along with how they, the bullshitters, want their audience to see things. They do not explain how warming is unclean because they cannot; instead they vaguely associate warming with “pollution” and over time and with repetition, it will be accepted by people as the bullshitters intend.

We are, according to the eco-bullshitters, to only associate CO2 with emissions from man-made machinery! We are not supposed to know that CO2 is natural nor think of it that way. This, from people who claim to have science on their side!

Think about what the environmentalists say: try to integrate the things they have asserted with each other and with the actual facts. Does it add up to a consistent and coherent knowledge system or is it a compartmentalized jumble? Is reality consistent and coherent or a compartmentalized jumble?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

What Makes Who Sick?

Posted by Tom Stelene on June 30, 2008

Via Drudge Report is this video of Harry Reid sharing his words of wisdom about coal and oil making us sick- and the planet.

I don’t know if I should laugh or puke.

Such a nay-saying, fear-peddling, anti-industry, little wet noodle of a man is not some babbling old fool on a park bench who grabs the ear of some random passer-by because he likes to hear himself talk whine, but is the Speaker of the House! This is pathetic!

“Oil makes us sick,” that from a ‘leader’ of a branch of government that has largely caused the current oil crisis by putting so many restrictions and burdens on the oil companies that they cannot produce enough oil! (Oh – I guess that is because it makes us sick!) The likes of Harry put their faces in front of cameras and denounce and vilify the oil industry before the nation and then they summon oil executives to answer to Congress why the oil situation is what it is – as if Congress has nothing to do with it!

It may be that Harry and his ilk are a little nervous now that the chickens of their policies are coming home to roost. They need to make their scapegoats and direct our attention to alleged ‘alternative energy sources’ in order to avoid voters’ much-deserved wrath.

So Harry, do you know what makes me sick? Environmentalists who want to sacrifice man’s progress and well-being to trees, animals, rocks, and dirt (aka, ‘The Environment’). Do you know what else makes me sick? The politicians who carry out that sick agenda. Politicians who cannot produce squat or make an honest dollar on their own, yet have the arrogance to vilify, shackle, and loot those who do – like oil men – make me sick. Harry Reid – along with the jackasses who voted the basket-case into office – makes me sick.

I hope I am not the only one.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.