web analytics

MAINSTREAM ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE EVIL

By Pete Moore On May 4th, 2019

We cannot remain ignorant of the clear warnings, that mainstream environmentalism is hard-left radicalism in a new wrapper.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said […]

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism.

That’s the IBD, quoting the remarks of Figueres, ahead of the Paris “climate change” conference in 2015. It’s correct, of course, to say retort that capitalism (allied to markets) is the only economic system that has worked at all. More than that, capitalism is astonishingly successful.

Man’s continuous and natural state, for almost all time, has been one of grinding poverty and endless work simply to stay fed and warm. Capitalism and markets alone have been the motive force which has lifted the great majority of the billions of people on the planet into wealth and comfort.

To seek capitalism’s destruction is to seek the impoverishment of mankind. These are the openly stated aims of mainstream so-called environmentalists and they are evil.

51 Responses to “MAINSTREAM ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE EVIL”

  1. To seek capitalism’s destruction is to seek the impoverishment of mankind. These are the openly stated aims of mainstream so-called environmentalists

    No, they just want an end to burning fossil fuels asap. In order to stop the Greenland ice-cap melting this century and flooding all of our coastal cities:

    “A new study warns that Greenland’s ice is melting faster than scientists previously thought. But perhaps the biggest surprise is that most of this ice loss is from the land-fast ice sheet itself, not Greenland’s glaciers. The new study, published January 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the largest sustained ice loss from early 2003 to mid-2013 came from Greenland’s southwest region, which is mostly devoid of large glaciers.

    Greenland, the world’s biggest island, appears to have hit a tipping point around 2002-2003 when the ice loss rapidly accelerated, said lead author Michael Bevis, a geoscientist at Ohio State University. By 2012 the annual ice loss was “unprecedented” at nearly four times the rate in 2003, Bevis said in an interview.”

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/greeland-ice-melting-four-times-faster-than-thought-raising-sea-level/

  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVapbFnbGWY

  3. Keep shilling for fossil fuels Patrick, you know they are the future.

  4. Peter –

    No, they just want an end to burning fossil fuels asap.

    The executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change reiterates: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

    More and more, mainstream environmentalism reveals itself to be hard-left extremism. The aim of overturning capitalism is evil. It is literally evil.

  5. Pete Moore

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that you are quoting a UN apparatchick with approval and without question.

    If you take the trouble to check the manifesto of the Greens in the UK you will see that their priority is an end to fossil fuels, not an end to capitalism. Here you go, you are welcome:

    https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/safe-climate.html

  6. Pete Moore

    We are both pro-Brexit. But you support a no deal Brexit and I don’t. I strongly believe that the UK should remain in the Customs Union, mainly because the idea of “free trade” deals with the USA and China and India is for the birds.

    But one good result of a no deal Brexit would be 40% tariffs on our sheep farmers, who would not exist without taxpayer subsidies in any case. This would would put their lights out in a few months. And here is why that would be a great result for biodiversity:

    “On Sunday, the UN agency Unesco granted the Lake District world heritage status. This, according to the report on which the decision was based, will correct an “imbalance” between “natural values” and “the cultural values of farming practices”.

    The entire high fells have been reduced by sheep to a treeless waste of cropped turf whose monotony is relieved only by erosion gullies, exposed soil and bare rock. Almost all the bird, mammal and insect species you might expect to find in a national park are suppressed or absent, and 75% of wildlife sites are in an unfavourable condition. So you could be forgiven for thinking that the balance should be tilted back towards nature. Oh no: apparently it’s “the cultural values and benefits of the farming activities” that have been neglected…

    The reality couldn’t be more different. Sheep farming is now characterised by land consolidation, subsidy harvesting, ranching on a scale that looks more like Argentina than anything Wordsworth would have recognised, quad bikes, steel barns and absentee ownership. But the myths persist, and they blind us to some brutal realities.

    Sheep, by nibbling out tree seedlings and other edible species, are a fully automated system for ecological destruction. They cleanse the land of almost all wildlife. In the UK they occupy some 4m hectares of our uplands. Compare this to the built environment (houses, factories, offices, roads, railways, airports, even parks and gardens) that covers 1.7m hectares. Yet this vast area, which is roughly equivalent to all our arable land, produces around 1.2% of our food (probably a good deal less, as the figure includes lamb from lowland farms). Our infertile uplands, including most of our national parks, would be better used to protect and restore the wonders of the living world. If we are to spend £3bn a year of public money, it should be deployed for ecological restoration rather than destruction. But the cultural power of this industry is so great that hardly anyone dares challenge it.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/11/lake-district-world-heritage-site-sheep

  7. Peter

    Peter, on May 5th, 2019 at 12:22 AM Said:
    Pete Moore

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that you are quoting a UN apparatchick with approval and without question.

    that’s perfect…..

    for you fine sir

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMIyDf3gBoY

  8. Peter, on May 4th, 2019 at 9:47 PM Said:
    Keep shilling for fossil fuels Patrick, you know they are the future.

    Without them there is no future.

    And Oil, Coal, and LNG are all 100% ORGANIC and natural. We thank mother earth for her abundance.

    🙂

  9. Peter –

    I know you want the EU to control our trade policies and foreign relations, without us being able to do anything about it. Quite why you want that is beyond me.

    The Green Party you say? Caroline Lucas MP’s party? The author if these words last week?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/30/green-new-deal-climate-change-social-transformation

    We are coming together across party lines to ally the issue of climate change with social transformation

    On Tuesday, the Institute for Public Policy Research launches its Environmental Justice Commission and we are coming together across Conservative, Labour and Green parties to serve on it. We are doing so with a very specific task in mind: to ally the issue of climate change with the economic and social transformation that we believe our country and citizens so urgently need and deserve. To act on that sense of hope.

    This means committing to a transformational plan for a Green New Deal, an unprecedented mobilisation and deployment of resources to tackle the accelerating climate crisis and transform our economy and society for all.

    Social justice, transformational economic and social change, all the Marxist euphemisms. I’ve told you, mainstream environmentalism is extreme left radicalism rebadged.

  10. Patrick

    //And Oil, Coal, and LNG are all 100% ORGANIC and natural. We thank mother earth for her abundance.//

    Uranium and plutonium are natural income from mother Earth. Perhaps you should sprinkle a bit on your breakfast cereal Patrick.

  11. Peter

    As usual mate your postings and links are factual, educational and backup all the points you’re making. However, you’re wasting your time with the likes of Patrick and Pete Moore.
    don’t despair though, in my experience most of the younger generation seem to be pretty clued into what’s actually happening to our environment and the planet. I just hope that the changes that need to happen to be made in time.

  12. Uranium and plutonium are natural income from mother Earth. Perhaps you should sprinkle a bit on your breakfast cereal Patrick.

    When our mild mannered Patrick was the occasionally hot headed ‘Troll’ he probably used to do just that 🙂

  13. I think in the case of our Patrick, any radical changes in mental activity caused by uranium can’t but be an improvement.

  14. O/T

    Incidentally Noel, in the recent council elections Aontú elected one councillor in the whole of the six counties. They should maybe change their name to Mise Féin.

  15. Why I love the admiration I have from peers.

  16. here I’ve sprinkled my cereal

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsUCRcK7QYc

  17. Good old Dave Alton, always missing the point.

    For the purposes of the post, AGW is irrelevant. That mainstream environmentalists agree with the theory goes without saying.

    The point is that mainstream environmentalism is increasingly in thrall to extreme, hard left politics. Some environmentalists agree with the AGW theory but argue for market-based solutions. They hardly get a hearing because mainstream environmentalism is turning ever more clearly toward Marxist economic and social outcomes.

    As long as they aim for radical left outcomes then AGW doesn’t matter. Radical left outcomes must be resisted by all decent, right thinking people.

  18. Pete

    The Green New Deal is needed precisely because market-based solutions are not delivering us from fossil fuels anything like fast enough. The UK has reduced its CO2 emissions compared to 1990 by significantly reducing coal-fired electricity. But our emissions from transport are still rising. We need to switch to electric vehicles asap and that will not happen without the necessary infrastructure and government incentives. The government target announced this week is 2035 for an end to sales of petrol and diesel vehicles, but we should be aiming for 2025.

    In addition we need a massive programme of insulating our homes because the cleanest energy of all is the energy you don’t use.

  19. “The felling of forests, the plundering of seas and soils, and the pollution of air and water are together pushing the natural world to the brink.

    That’s the warning more than 500 experts in 50 countries are expected to give in a major UN-backed report, due to be published on Monday. The assessment will highlight the losses that have hit the natural world over the past 50 years and how the future is looking bleak for tens to hundreds of thousands of species.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48104037

  20. Peter – the ‘Green New Deal’ is schlock thrown up by the controllers of the Dems’ latest puppet. This is more important:

    https://i.ibb.co/hXhpqff/FC776000-BBE3-4-C50-A54-B-901-FCB918-BEE.jpg

    Concentrate clean-up efforts on the Indian sub-continent, and industrialised Asia

  21. The emotionally-incontinents are shrieking about Climate Crisis, and they may be right because – EVERYWHERE IS WARMING UP FASTER THAN EVERYWHERE ELSE!!!!!

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MkYQ_52_wMw/XM3tPv4sz4I/AAAAAAAAG04/l_bHPUvZ5rUbzZlD8IuKfAi3ZXieg4-WgCLcBGAs/s1600/tempeee.jpg

  22. Allan, like so many on your side of the argument, you don’t understand the simple word “global”.

  23. Noel – yes, as you see from the reports in the linked item, everywhere (South Africa, China, Britain, Alaska, Australia, Singapore, Spain, Russia) is heating up twice as fast as everywhere else.

  24. Oh yes – and mountains are warming up twice as fast, everywhere…….

    https://psmag.com/environment/mountains-warming-photo-essay

    Mountains Are Warming Twice as Fast as the Rest of the World

    Is Singapore on a mountain? Last time that I was there, it wasn’t

  25. Allan, you still don’t understand the simple word “global”.

    And you aren’t alone in that.

  26. Pete Moore,
    //Good old Dave Alton, always missing the point.//

    Good old Pete Moore, always talking s***.
    Try reading my posts again Pete, I never actually addressed your post at all, so it was actually not possible for me to miss your point. My response was to Patrick and Peter.

  27. Noel – how global do you need mountains, Singapore, Russia, Britain, South Africa, China, Canada…..to be? Are they not part of ‘the globe’. Be specific

  28. Man’s continuous and natural state, for almost all time, has been one of grinding poverty and endless work simply to stay fed and warm. Capitalism and markets alone have been the motive force which has lifted the great majority of the billions of people on the planet into wealth and comfort.

    The “natural state” only changed when capitalism was staring down the barrel of an alternative system. If capitalism was the solution all along then how did things only improve when socialism became a force that could neither be repressed or even ignored? Or looking from the present day how is it that we are becoming poorer when capitalism is again at a zenith and socialism can be repressed and ignored?

  29. now the question is….. is that THE Daytripper……..?

  30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYZlME0mQB8

  31. //mountains, Singapore, Russia, Britain, South Africa, China, Canada…..to be? Are they not part of ‘the globe’.//

    Yes, they are part of the globe, but are not the globe.
    There is no reason why mountains, Singapore, Russia, Britain, South Africa, China, Canada… should not be hotter than the global average at the same time.

    As for “global”, I’ll give you a hint: even if every country in the world were cooling, there could still be global warming.

    Think about it.

  32. one of my favorite off hand remarks is a line from scotty on star trek… “you cannot change the laws of physics”. I’ll say it when somebody is being stupid. Like everyone who believes in man made climate change.

    You gits believe man can not only predict a 2-6 degree change in planetary temperature a 100 years from now, but spew the arrogance that you can control the climate.

    The Laws of Physics have existed from the time of ancient greece.

    Physics is, in one sense, the oldest and most basic academic pursuit; its discoveries find applications throughout the natural sciences, since matter and energy are the basic constituents of the natural world.

    Well last month thanks to the fact that we now have two super telescopes in space we can use them in stereo to map the universe.

    Well we just discovered that object moving in the inner universe and the outer universe move according to the laws of physics. Except we just made a discovery. The whole middle of the known universe isn’t. Objects aren’t moving following the Laws of Physics as we understand them.

    So the base of all our science is missing a huge chunk of the Laws of Physics…. and we don’t know them we didn’t even know there was more to physics a well examined base of all our science has a whole section we just found out we didn’t know about….

    Physics is based in solid proven equations that we know work, yet there is now a whole piece we don’t know. Climate science is based on math that has never given the same answer twice. Yet we should completely change mankind to follow it…..

    like the Man said…. We cannot change the laws of physics….. but we must because we just found out we don’t know them all.

  33. As for “global”, I’ll give you a hint: even if every country in the world were cooling, there could still be global warming.

    Noel – how much data do you want? Think about it

    There is no reason why mountains, Singapore, Russia, Britain, South Africa, China, Canada… should not be hotter than the global average at the same time.

    Noel – are you being serious?

  34. //spew the arrogance that you can control the climate.//

    Patrick, if man could control the climate, then there wouldn’t be a problem.
    We’d simply have to wait for Trump to choke on his next tit and get a new govt in the US, then all civilised countries can work together to roll back the global warming phenomenon.

    The fear is, however, that global warming is getting out of control, and that there will be – as you say in the States – nothing nobody can do about it.

    //The Laws of Physics have existed from the time of ancient greece.//

    Patrick, that’s an absolute gem of yours. Surely one of your Greatest Hits.

    Reminds me of what an old conservative Irish gombeen politician once said: “Sure, there was no sex in our country before television”.

    “As for “global”, I’ll give you a hint: even if every country in the world were cooling, there could still be global warming.”

    Allan, if you don’t understand that, you don’t know geography.

    //There is no reason why mountains, Singapore, Russia, Britain, South Africa, China, Canada… should not be hotter than the global average at the same time.

    Noel – are you being serious?//

    … and if you don’t understand that, you don’t know maths.

  35. yes the real daytripper. enjoying a nostalgic visit to atw

  36. Holy Jesus, he’s alive!!

  37. Noel the things I say off the cuff carry more weight than any “scientist” you have that is pushing the religion of man made climate change.

    We could light up every nuke on the planet kill all life and the planet would eventually comeback to the same levels of vegetation and the same cycles of climate it has now.

    We wouldn’t be here and the planet would still warm and cool as it’s orbit dictates. We are riding on a ball of rock and water in the sweet zone orbit around a stable star. The cycle of Life will happen.

    Climate is dictated by 2 things the presence of water and a planets rotation around it’s sun. Until man can control either one or both of those elements we can’t effect the climate.

    now I’m gonna jump in my american made V8 and go eat a cheeseburger in paradise….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJi4bln-hHQ

  38. Welcome back Trip.

  39. daytripper

    We’ve solved nothing!!

    But stay awhile and chat.

  40. Noel – see that global average that you’re citing in defence of your idiocy: it is calculated using figures from everywhere’s mountains, Singapore, Russia, Britain, South Africa, China, Canada….. This means that if everywhere cited previously is heating at twice the rate of your global average, it means that all of these places are heating at significantly more twice the rate of the other places, and these places are in all areas of the globe right next to the places that are heating over twice as fast as the other places. This is what you believe, and I’ve asked you more than once of it is what you believe, and you have confirmed it.

    Put it like this: there are four men whose IQs are 140, 120, 120, 100 – an average of 120. According to you, the 140-IQer is 20 points above the others as an average: but it’s more than that. The average of the others without the 140-er is 113 so the margin versus the others is greater, just as the rate of increase of temperature of everywhere cited is much more than twice that of the rest of ‘the globe’ – but where is the rest? It’s right next to the places that are supposedly heating at twice the rate of the ‘average’.

    Mountains, China, South Africa, Canada, Britain, Russia – these are locations around the globe and all over the globe so only a total idiot could believe that these places are heating at over twice as fast as everywhere else – and that is exactly what a total idiot believes!

  41. Allan,
    First of all I don’t believe that collage of paper clippings you link to is made up of real newspaper articles. Second, even if it were, it does not mean that the journalists who wrote them were correct. Some journalists would probably say something sensational like “hotter than everywhere else” while really meaning “hotter than the average” (it’s scarcely credible that the temperature of every nook and cranny of the earth is regularly measured so that a journalist could make such a claim).

    But let’s assume that all of them are real articles and that all the content in those articles is true.

    It is still possible that all of the places mentioned are hotter than the average; being hotter could mean being merely a fraction of a degree warmer.

    There are 24 boys in a class. Tom, Tim, Malcolm and Trevor are each 1.60 m high. The class average is 1.30. All the named boys are taller than the class average.

    The example is theoretically and mathematically apt, even though physically unlikely as in real life temperatures (unlike the height of boys) relate to and influence each other and, over time, tend to balance out. But the simultanous higher than average temperatures in different and distant places is quite possible.

    And this brings us to the point about geography. 71 percent of the earth’s surface is covered by water (and that could well increase with continued global warming :-), e.g. all the countries that are constantly being cited by people like you together make up no more than 29 % of the globe. That’s what a lot of your crowd don’t understand about global warming, the “global” part. You see, it’s quite possible that every country in the world could at the same time be hotter than the gloabl average.

    There have been very hot temperatures in Australia even in the last southern winter. The great land masses on earth are, however, mostly in the northern hemisphere. So it’s quite conceivable that, say, during a northern summer, when all that vast land mass (and the air above it) heats up faster than the sea mass (and the air above it), that a very large majority of countries could be warmer than the global average at the same time.

    Global warming means that the average temperatures across, below and above the earth’s surface (whether water, land or ice) are higher than they used to be. All reputable scientific organisations seem to agree that this is the case.

    In fact, the bigger risk to the environment comes from higher temperatures in and over water than higher temperatures on land.

  42. The Earth is several billion years old what was the temperature at the end of the first billion ? Second Billion according to science how about the third of fourth?

    6 million years ago lifeforms as we know them appeared. What was the temp then? They say we Homosapien has been here for 200,000 what was the temperature when we emerged ?

    Now average all those numbers you’ll get the planets mean temperature. What you don’t know what those temperatures were because we don’t have the ability to figure it out… hhmm

    But you’re going to take an average the only temperatures we know the past 100 years and with that you’re going to figure out what it will be in the next 100 years…?

    I can not change the laws of physics captain…..

    No greater arrogance than the arrogance of man.

  43. If there was one gw denialist here who even acknowledged that they had at least some issues to overcome factually, I might listen to them. But to a man they just lie about the most basic things so why bother?

  44. They are the “ cult “

  45. right

  46. Man is causing the climate to change, and Trump colluded with the russians.

    You guys have all the answers.

  47. Patrick, thats a woeful argument. It makes my head hurt. Why do denialists always jump from outright denial to implied admission then claim it always happens over timespans that go well beyond human existence?

    Our entire system for 10 or 20000 years has been built on grasses. Ignoring everything else for the moment a major impact to grasses around the world would be singularly catastrophic to human society as we know it.

  48. The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era.

    What made the climate change those past 7 times in the last 650,000 years? There were no fossil fuels being used.

    What caused the change?

    Now I can answer that question and you can’t, but you say I’m wrong. I say prove it.

    You can’t your own faiths models have not given the same answers twice… how is that science?

  49. daytripper, on May 7th, 2019 at 12:48 AM Said:
    Patrick, thats a woeful argument. It makes my head hurt. Why do denialists always jump from outright denial to implied admission then claim it always happens over timespans that go well beyond human existence?

    Our entire system for 10 or 20000 years has been built on grasses. Ignoring everything else for the moment a major impact to grasses around the world would be singularly catastrophic to human society as we know it.

    True Trip we must preserve the green places, pollute as little as possible and be good stewards. Which we are. The US has cut it’s greenhouse gasses better than any nation. We’ve cleaned and maintain our rivers and lakes. The rest of the world is behind us on all of these things and we burn more fossil fuels than any nation. China will pass us in that and they do nothing to fight pollution.

    Man’s time in existence has been very short in the span of planetary history. You chastise me and say I bring in time and things that existed before mankind. Yet those who believe we can control the climate want to ignore that they lack billions of years of data.

  50. So Tripper hows life been treating you? Hopefully well. I hope you stick around.

    Welcome back from the former Troll.

  51. my god we’re doomed we’re all gonna die………… aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/nature-declining-at-unprecedented-rate-un-study-warns-922301.html