Today, I received an email inviting me to join an environmentalist organization. Here was my response:I would not join such an organization. I am distressed at how environmental policy has become "religion," going well beyond the science, claiming consensus where it doesn't exist, and censoring the hundreds of dissenting, responsible scientists. (They had to create their own annual conference because they were shut out of the UN/IPCC's, which these scientists blast as politically motivated.) Here is Reason Magazine's coverage of this year's conference, which concluded today.
Especially in these tight economic times, we should not be doing what Obama and the Al Gore-led ExtremeGreens want to force us to do--divert massive amounts of our precious fiscal and human resources in a (vain) attempt to cool the earth.
Nor do I support the onerous restrictions on our lives that Obama and his ExtremeGreen-packed team plan to force upon us in an attempt to obtain energy independence, for example, pressuring us onto time-wasting mass transit by building no new freeways and converting existing ones into toll roads. Meanwhile, TeamObama is wildly spending our tax dollars on physics-delimited solar and wind power and his green allies are throwing as many roadblocks as possible in front of building nuclear plants, which Europe and China wisely recognize as core to the energy-independence solution.
If America intentionally were trying to destroy itself, it could hardly do a better job than Obama and his ExtremeGreens are doing, powerfully promulgating policies most of which, at their root, are based on bailing out bad and irresponsible businesses and individuals with money from the good and the responsible. He generally follows Marx's core tenet: from those who have to those who don't. Per the fall of the Soviet Union, all the Eastern bloc countries, and Cuba, that's a formula for a society's demise.
When our children grow up, they will shake their heads wondering what we did to America.
3 comments:
Marty,
I am liberal on almost every current issue, but I agree with you that more skepticism needs to be applied to the environmental movement.
In fact, I'll admit it... I don't really know what the truth is on this issue. I am convinced that there is not a real consensus, and I'm troubled that environmentalists seem to change terminology so often from "Global Warming" to "Global Cooling" to "Environmental Change", etc. It kind of sets off my BS detector.
I have also noticed a "religious tone" to this movement that refuses to consider any other viewpoints. That scares me. Nothing is "beyond questioning"/beyond doubt except dogma.
Considering that following the environmentalist's agenda could have a major negative impact on the economy, while financially benefiting many of its leaders, I remain skeptical and appreciate you continuing to speak out against this issue -- even though I'm sure it doesn't make you any more popular in today's climate.
I equate "Global Warming" theories to the new volcano eruption theory. It's been said that more and more volcanos are becoming active due to the increased population on the planet.
The weight of all the people on the planet is pressing down on the surface of the earth, thus causing pressure inside the core. The only way for Mother earth to release this pressure is through the openings of volcanos.
@Anonymous from March 11 -
There are a lot of liberally minded people who remain skeptical about many environmental issues. There is a big disagreement among environmentalists about nuclear energy. As Marty states, it is the core to energy independence and security. Obama may make some nuclear strides in due time and he may have done nuclear energy a big favor by starving the Yucca Mt. project. Come by my blog Pro nuclear Democrats to learn more about nuclear energy.
Jason Ribeiro
Post a Comment