Big Green finds a new excuse 6

The Synod of the Church of Gaia has found a new excuse for trying to impose international communism on the world under the dictatorship of the UN.

This is from Townhall, by Paul Driessen and David Rothbard:

The UN Conference on Sustainable Development is underway [20-22 June, 2012] in Rio de Janeiro. This time, 20 years after the original 1992 Rio “Earth Summit,” thousands of politicians, bureaucrats and environmental activists are toning down references to “dangerous man-made climate change,” to avoid repeating the acrimony and failures that characterized its recent climate conferences in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban.

Instead, “Rio+20” is trying to shift attention to “biodiversity” and alleged threats to plant and animal species, as the new “greatest threat” facing Planet Earth. This rebranding is “by design,” according to conference organizers, who say sustainable development and biodiversity is an “easier sell” these days than climate change: a simpler path to advance the same radical goals.

What are those radical goals? Same old, same old. They don’t change.

Those goals include expanded powers and budgets for the United Nations, UN Environment Programme, US Environmental Protection Agency and other government agencies, and their allied Green pressure groups; new taxes on international financial transactions (to ensure perpetual independent funding for the UN and UNEP); and more mandates and money for “clean, green, renewable” energy.

Their wish list also includes myriad opportunities to delay, prevent and control energy and economic development, hydrocarbon use, logging, farming family size, and the right of individual countries, states, communities and families to make and regulate their own development and economic decisions.

Aside from not giving increased power to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and activists, there are two major reasons for stopping this attempted biodiversity-based power grab.

1) There is no scientific basis for claims that hundreds or thousands of species are at risk. …

No bird or mammal species in recorded history is known to have gone extinct due to climate change.

2) The greatest threats to species are the very policies and programs being advocated in Rio.

Those policies would ban fossil fuels, greatly increase renewable energy use, reduce jobs and living standards in rich nations, and perpetuate poverty, disease, death and desperation in poor countries.

The Rio+20 biodiversity and sustainability agenda means artificially reduced energy and economic development. It means rationed resources, sustained poverty and disease, and unsustainable inequality, resentment, conflict, and pressure on wildlife and their habitats. …

Soon after that the authors go off the rails, raving about “Our Creator”, a mystical being who, they imagine, “endowed” us with “a world of riches”.

But the greater part of the article is worth reading.

  • Harold

    “1) There is no scientific basis for claims that hundreds or thousands of species are at risk. …”
    I am sorry, but if they want to be taken seriously they shouldn’t just make stuff up.  There is a scientific basis.  They not agree with it, but it surely exists.  See for example, Nature, Volume 473, Pages 368–371. (19 May 2011) – Species Area Relationships Always Overestimate Extinction Rates From Habitait Loss.

    I can see only a few interpretations.  Either  the authors are so scientifically illiterate that they cannot distinguish between  counting proven extinct species and a scientific basis for species loss.  Or they can distinguish this, but choose to lie in order to persuade others to their view.  Either way I don’t see why I should take much notice of what they say.

    Maybe there other interpretations that I have missed.

    • George

                          In response to Harold :

       Harold  , I knew when this topic appeared on the site that you would without a doubt be the one chiming in with a staunchly  aggressive ad hominem commentary on the subject.   I’ve noticed that on this website when Jillian puts pictures of viciously murdered and disfigured people, hateful attacks by terrorists and human rights violations galore that YOU are totally SILENT and have absolutely NOTHING to say about the matter ( not necessarily 100%  of the time but almost so ).  Why is that ? As soon as the subject of [ climate change ] is mentioned , then you  are here in an aggressive assertion proclaiming that the information presented is false and that your claims and  sources mentioned are beyond question to be accurate and true .   Who can certify that the sources and individual arthors  that YOU have mentioned are NOT lying ?  You say that we believe what we want to believe, and yet I can make the same reciprocal claim about yourself and assert that you only believe what YOU  want to believe in regards to YOUR presented sources. 
                            I have to give you credit Harold and that is that you are certainly PREDICTABLE  in your responses , that’s for sure. I know this topic is your PET PEEVE but whatever claims that you make toward The Atheist Conservative and some of us  can be made about YOU.
                                 I went and did further independent  research on this subject of [ climate change ] and I checked both sides of the argument just to be fair , objective , honest and factual. There is some merit to what you have presented to a degree but it is also a fact that more and more scientists are indeed coming out of the closet and asserting that this entire fiasco of [ climate change ] or [ global warming ] is fraudulent and politically driven and more & more  “whistle blowers”  are coming forth regularly to expose these indiduals pushing this agenda [ and an agenda is exactly what it is ].  No one is saying that automobiles don’t yield pollution , but what is being said is that this idea that the earth is going to have a global heat wave because soccer moms are driving their SUV’s  or that this is going to melt all the ice caps and we’re going to suffer a massive mega- heat wave that is going to destroy us all is pure deceitful rubbish. 
                          For every source that you present to us Harold with claims of your global warming / climate change assertions , I as well can counter with information from credible sources and professional and renown scientists that refute your claims. Now , having said this , if you wish to accuse me of just believing what I want to believe then I as well can accuse YOU of just believing what YOU want to  believe .
                          Liberal left-wing activists have been  going around claiming that oil drilling in Alaska would endanger the carribou  and endanger the herds and their way of life . This turned out not only to be a blatant lie but the carribou began thriving even more prosperous as a result of the Alaskan oil pipline in Anwr , Alaska  because the carribou were able to stay warm around the large pipelines and vegetation began to grow tremendously around the pipeline and provided an abundance of food for the carribou and their herds INCREASED ( not decreased ) as the lying environmentalist/animal rights activists insisted on proclaiming .   These “sharks rights ” activists have been  going around ( and still are  claiming that shark species are almost extinct which has proven to be another fabricated lie by the animal rights activists .  These animal rights activists have been going around globally with claims that 100 million of these sharks are caught annually on fishing trawlers which is a fabricated lie made up by them to push ther agenda .  Indepenmdent researchers have indicated that people around the world have reported that the numbers are INCREASING and more encounters as ever are going on and the vast majority of attacks go un-reported or are unknown or are classified as deaths caused by other sources and this has been proven by professional researchers and the “politically correct” industry censored this information intentionally for the sole purpose of deceiving the general public in order to promote their vile agenda. Federal agencies have reported that the animal rights / environmentalists are number one threat as far as domestic terrorism is concerned and many of these kooks love to engage in internet trolling and harrassment attacks & name calling to silence those speaking out against their dubious agendas.
                                I believe in protecting the environment, fighting against pollution and the protection of animals ( those that deserve protection )  . I have seen animal rights activists having fits of anger and hateful demonstrations against medicine companies using mice or rats to test possible vaccines that could save millions of human lives yet the stupid activists cared more for the freakin’ mice  ( pesky rodents ) than they did humans.  Many psychotherapists have called this MYSANTHROPY and that is exactly what it is in a nutshell–bar none.
                               The USA could have had an SST airliner like the British/French and the Russians but the militant environmentalist activists caused that program by Boeing and Lockeed to be cancelled because  these deceitful environmentalist acivists convinced our government and society that these planes would destroy our atmosphere when it is a fact that military jet fighters and jet bombers were flying under the same conditions and in the same upper atmosphere on a daily basis. We are getting more pollution from volcanic erruptions, hurricanes, etc.  than from vehicle exhausts , etc.  Sun spots on the sun have had more of an effect on our planet than  vehicle exhausts.  I don’t want to see our rain-forrests destroyed and yes I want them saved . I don’t want to see pollutants put into our atmosphere , lakes, rivers, and buried beneath the earth , ecetera , but this current alarming presentation of claims that the world is coming to a global warming  end  and we’re all going to burn up and we are in grave danger because Billy Bob is driving his twin-cab pick up truck is pure BS. If you want  to list various books for us to read Harold then I can give a vast reciprocal list as well. And while you’re claiming that we are chosing to believe what we want to believe , then as stated before I will reciprocate and assert that YOU are believing what YOU want to believe. We’ve had this conversation before repeatedly and it’s going nowhere fast.  At least I have had the honesty to assert that the information that I have provided is for the reader to accept or reject at his/her will and I don’t care either way but YOU are definately ( IMHO ) trying to convince us that you are so definately right beyond question and that is truly absurd. I’m making my rebuttal to your commentary not with the intent to be  personally  abrassive to you but rather what you are proclaiming ( no morre and no less ) and  I’m being blunt and straightforward on the matter. You have made your presntation Harold and now I  have in turn made mine and we’ll just let the readers decide for themselves how they perceive this situation as it is not my intent to persuade anyone in either direction because I truly don’t give a rat’s rear end either way and that’s being upfront and totally honest. 

      • Harold

         Hi George.  Actually, I did not mention climate change, but species at risk of extinction.  They claim that there is no scientific basis for claims that species are at risk, but that is wrong.  I don’t think it is possible to reasonably dispute that there is a scientific basis.
         
        These sorts of claims are made too often, and distract from what should be the proper debate.  
         
        I did not claim that the climate has anything to do with it – I think it is much more to do with habitat loss.  But since you raised it…
         
        You say “We are getting more pollution from volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, etc.  than from vehicle exhausts , etc”  Well, this another one that is wrong.   Volcanoes produce about 1% of the CO2 that humans do from fossil fuel burning.  There is no measure of “pollution” that makes sense where volcanoes produce more than humans.   This is about as close to fact as science gets.  But of course it makes no difference to the argument.  This is just a meaningless claim, which when dis-proved does not cause anyone to change position.  
         
        My posts are not about what we should do about climate change, because I do not know.  Part of the reason I do not know is because there is no debate.  The debate is about spurious claims like the one above.  We should be discussing solutions, but we can’t because  too many people do not recognise there is a problem.
         
        We need to discuss the total effects of the different “solutions”.  Climate scientists are NOT well qualified to do this.  We need to do proper evaluation.  Someone may say -” Lets generate everything by wind”.  The scientists can then tell us how many turbines, what cost, how much energy we will get and the effect on atmospheric composition.  The economists can tell us how this will affect the economy.  Social scientists can try to work out what effect this will have on society.  Agronomists can try to work out what effect this will have on crop yields.  For this particular proposed solution (100% wind) the results of all this discussion would be to predict a global disaster as economies crash and agriculture fails. 
        We need to weigh up costs and benefits of all proposals – including carrying on as normal.  This is impossible if too many people just reject the costs of doing nothing.
         
        We need to have the proper debate about whether it is justified to restrict economic growth to some extent today, in order to save costs tomorrow.  We cannot have this debate if people make stupid claims that there are no costs tomorrow.  I am not pre-supposing the outcome if this debate – maybe maximum economic growth is the best way forward. 

        I think lots of people believe that if they were to accept global warming, then they must embrace hair-shirt conservationism.  Not true.  There are arguments for and against cutting CO2 emissions.  If we do it too radically, then there will be economic disaster and world-wide famine.  Economic damage now risks harming the very people that cuts are supposed to help.  We need to continue to use some fossil fuels.  Many of the arguments I have seen follow the line roughly that such and such a measure to cut CO2 emissions will cost loads of money and we don’t need it anyway because there is no global warming.  I would much prefer the argument to be such and such a policy will cost loads of money, which is not worth it because…
         
        Lovelock has adopted a similar practical approach.  He concluded nuclear power was the required to minimise CO2 emissions from power generation.  The Green movement has an irrational fear of nuclear, so this option has not been put into effect.  This means there is now huge amounts of CO2 emitted which were unnecessary.   This CO2 could harm millions, and we have saved miniscule contamination from radiation which would probably have harmed very few.  The debate is choked ffrom both sides.

        • Liz

          You’re right – the Green movement is getting in the way of the very thing they claim to want.  Nuclear power would contribute alot to the solution, but they are not willing to compromise from their lofty “purist” position.  All they know how to do is impose their edicts to ban everything in sight.  To compromise would be to lose their salvation or something.
          If they would simply have some common sense and recognise that destruction of global economies is not a sane solution, a real and productive solution might emerge.  
          But due to their infantile doomsday armageddon mongering, the debate is not about anything that matters, just everyone reacting to their insanity.

  • Liz

    They’ll never run out of excuses for blaming humans (specifically independent, productive, enterprising humans) for EVERYTHING. 
    In true parasite form, they will never stop strangling their host until it is completely dead.  Will they be happy then, when no-0ne is allowed to use earth’s resources to produce things and make life enjoyable?  Will they be happy once everyone is finally forced to live in teepees and crap in the woods and gather nuts and berries along the primrose path of their glorious Utopia?
    I don’t doubt they will be the first ones to start whining about something, and blaming it on everyone ELSE, of course.  But by then we’ll all be dying of dysentary and starvation anyway, so it won’t much matter.  The Lord of the Flies will rule.

    • George

      Liz –

      The radical environmentalist wackos and the radical animal rights kooks are the  most warped minded individuals ( short of terrorists themselves and some of them are ) existing in world society today.  Actually referring to the matter as — ” The Lord of the Flies ” is actually giving them a compliment.  They aren’t to that stage level yet.  So far , they should simply be referred to as —– [ The Lord of the Maggots ].