Saturday, December 26, 2009

Environmentalists are not scientists

One of the greatest mix-ups of our times is to confuse environmentalists with scientists.This of course is abetted wholeheartedly by the media who take up every green cause with a gusto, citing some or the other dubious but inevitably alarmist "study".And the confusion suits the greenies very well -their agenda takes on the prestige of science.

Jon Basil Utley reminds us that the green agenda is  impervious to science or facts. The sheepskin of "science" is being used by the wolf of green ideology.That ideology at root is totalitarian.

However, there were some real brains with other motives for promoting the lies. Extreme environmentalism has become the new socialism, an excuse for dictatorial rule to limit consumption and justify highly centralized government power “to save humanity.” Below is a list of quotes from leading leftists. There were brains behind it all, the old socialists looking for a new justification for government takeover of the economy, for a “planned” economy which they would plan and manage. Man-made global warming became the substitute agenda for Leftists who had been discredited by Reaganomics and the collapse of communism.
He then quotes from the environmentalists(from the wolves' mouths, so to speak) -
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation and former Democratic U.S. senator from Colorado.

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment who led that country’s delegation to Kyoto.
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” John Holdren (Obama’s Science Czar) wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.”  See also John Holdren and the Anti-Growth Malthusians for interesting links and quotations.

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton professor and member of Environmental Defense Fund.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong, a native of Canada considered by some to be one of the leading environmentalists in the world. He is an official at the U.N.
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” Paul Watson, co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace.

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” Dave Foreman, U.S. environmentalist and co-founder of radical environmental group Earth First.

The sheepskin of "science" imparts credibility to the greens -but it deducts the same from the science. And that is really sad.


nofreewind said...

Here is some real science.  The decreasing logarithmic effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Does Hansen know this?  

I keep coming across my skeptic pals stating that increasing CO2 will only have a mild effect on temperature, because it has a reverse logarithmic GHG effect. The first 20 ppm have a big effect, then less so to 100 ppm and then by the time we get to 380, doubling it's concentration will have little effect.
I found that greenhouse plastic has a similar effect. ... c-co2.html

some other pal told me that even the IPCC agrees that: the reverse logarithmic effect from CO2 "settled science". 

The best answer I found was right here.
If the scientists accept the MODTRAN program calculations, then this entire thing is "once again" nothing but a complete scam, hoax or whatever. spent trillions on nonsense, and literally kill people by freezing them to death and impoverishing them by increasing their energy prices.

Here in the physics forum some seemingly "good guys" come up with the exact same thing as the blogger, just trying to get to the truth.
Listen to RealScientists talking
"Look in the Modtran graph right below the output data, that should answer both questions. CO2 only radiates only with a certain narrow frequency spectrum. the first ppmv's saturate it rather quickly, then at higher CO2 concentrations the adjacent frequencies only get slowly affected.

Compare it with painting with a little transparent paint. The first layer gives the strongest coloring. Additional layers of paint only deepen the color slightly. This a 100% identical process, only in another frequency band.

....That brings to question, what does cause the earth to be warmer if ghgs don't have much of anything to do with it. It would appear that cloud cover might be the actual reason - that combined with albedo - as well as being the dominant reasons for variations."

This is what happens every time I look into any of the green claims, it always turns to nonsense.

Original comment date- 2009-12-27. See here-