An Introduction To A Short Series Of Posts.

Don’t start none, Won’t be none.

Or, perhaps, it should read, if you hadn’t started any, there wouldn’t be any, now. 

For years the alarmist camp has been actively projecting their failings as human beings onto the skeptical camp.  No one who disagrees with the main tenants and themes of their advocacy is safe from their character assassination.  They have described skeptics in the most vile of terms and have advocated the most vile actions towards skeptics.  One of the most recent example of such character assassination and guilt by association attempts is the inane conspiratorial dispersions cast towards a group of people who question the wisdom of the U.S. pursuing wind energy in its present form.  The attempts were laughable, but the motivation is not.

Many people have objected to the Heartland Institute’s billboard campaign.  They lament the coarse implications in the billboard’s statement.  They believe the focus should be on the science rather than arguing from association.  I maintain one must dig in the dirt to get the gold.  It would have been nice to have had a scientific debate on CAGW, but it simply wasn’t allowed by the alarmists.  They reject and deny any and all conflicting science to their advocacy de jour.(though they generate much of their own conflicting sophist material they call “science”)  It would have been nice to have an economic discussion on their advocacy, but, it is entirely impossible when they regard capitalism as an evil and Marxism as a good.  (This will be demonstrated in short.)  It would have been nice to have a policy discussion regarding how best to deal with developing nations.  It would have been nice to have some civil discourse regarding these issues with generous regard to the motivations and dispositions of the various parties.  But, for years they’ve openly and freely insulted, engaged in character assassination, assigned improper motivations to our questions and have suggested some of the most vile solutions towards the disposition of skeptics. 

I’ve long argued the CAGW/CC/environmental discussion has very little to do with science.  The base of these discussions are ideological and not science based.  While I may have used a different person association to start the campaign, I find that HI’s association campaign is fairly accurate.  Not simply because of Kaczynski’s statements regarding CAGW/CC, but also because of the similarities parallels of their advocacies.  Kaczynski is described as an American mathematician, social critic, anarcho-primitivist, and Neo-Luddite.  His manifesto that called for a worldwide revolution against the effects of modern society’s “industrial-technological system”.  Kaczynski asserts that “the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.”  Here, I find that this is a common theme among the environmental advocates…… and alarmingly so.  (again, this will be demonstrated in short.)  As I stated, I probably wouldn’t have started with Kaczynski, but I, perhaps, would have opted for someone such as Stalin or Mao.   

I’ve collected a plethora of statements made by advocates of the environmental causes which demonstrate that the characterizations of their advocacy are much like I’ve described in the past.  For instance, I’ve often called these people anti-American.  It can be demonstrated that they are indeed, anti-American and that is isn’t an attempt at mischaracterization, but rather, an apt description of their positions.  I’ve also called them Marxists, misanthropists, Malthusian, and totalitarian.  The notion that they have set up their own form of theology has been advanced which I completely agree that this is the aim.  And, myself with a multitude of others have made the claim that these people are engaged in serial deception. 

The sources for the collected quotes is limited.  However, they are on a different PC.  I’ll rectify the acknowledgements as soon as I can.  I’m calling this series, “Because they told me”.  Because this isn’t a series of inferential statements open to various interpretations, these are emphatic statements by the enviro/climate Marxist Malthusian misanthropists, themselves.  The reason why I’m doing this is to awaken people to who and what we are arguing with. 

Any additional quotes from sourced attributions pertinent to the topic will be welcome.  Discussion is always welcome and open. 

This entry was posted in Climate, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to An Introduction To A Short Series Of Posts.

  1. gator69 says:

    These are a few of my favorites… and of course, there are more…

    “We need to get some broad based support,
    to capture the public’s imagination…
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
    make simplified, dramatic statements
    and make little mention of any doubts…
    Each of us has to decide what the right balance
    is between being effective and being honest.”
    – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology,
    lead author of many IPCC reports

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation

    “The models are convenient fictions
    that provide something very useful.”
    – Dr David Frame,
    climate modeler, Oxford University

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s