—at least, so argues “conservationist” Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who, let me add, might better have illustrated his point had he leapt from a rooftop rather than expending the hot air necessary to cast himself in the role of public neo-Malthusian.
But then, isn’t that always the way with these reformers?
And Watson is not alone: as with any religion—and make no mistake, the Green movement is a secular religion that is every bit as exacting as the more fundamental of its metaphysical counterparts—we are beginning to see, within “conservationist” circles, a new strand of asceticism, albeit one that is coupled with a troubling desire for mass enforcement of its principles (as well as a notable lack of willingness, on the part of these new “prophets,” to take their own advice and off themselves; so in that sense, they mirror terror leaders) by way of social engineering of the kind that, when Hitler tried it, was called, you know, genocide.
Here, the approach is a “soft” one, of course—ovens and gas chambers can be so unsightly, whereas reproductive control is merely like good zookeeping—but the goal remains the same, with the “Master Race” fantasies of Hitler replaced by the establishment atop the terrestrial pecking order of evergreen trees and sage brush and dung beetles and rocky creeks.
It is the new Rapture—a perverse, bizzaro-world where negative eugenics is being promoted on behalf of coral reefs and decorative bushes by people whose hatred of humanity has been sublimated into a reverence for, what?—nimbus clouds? A Dwarf Iris?
And here you thought it was only religious fundamentalists who were interested in bringing about End Times. At any rate, there’s probably another Dinesh D’Souza book in here somewhere. Which should keep Andrew Sullivan busy, thank Gaia.
Leftist/Fascist, Fascist/Leftist.
Reactionary is reactionary is reactionary.
The Worldwide Wrestling Federation has a Living Planet Report? Egad.
A truther!
Who are you, and what have you done with Patterico?
I find it interesting that Mr. Watson can blithely pass over the Jurrasic and Permian extinction events and not mention that both were, and still are, extinction events whose cause is debated. Whether it was a decrease of coastal area at tht time of formation of the super continent Pangea or it was the rapid glaciation events as it broke up to the discussions of a meteor impacts off the Yucatan or the coast of Virgina, the one consensus is that there is no consensus.
Likewise, so what if early hominids killed of the megafauna? Does he think that the giant amphibians just packed up and went home when the dinosaurs made the scene? No. They became food.
That’s called evolution by predation.
This whole article, even before he gets to his radically stupid ascertations of essentially letting everyone die to save the species, was shot full of holes in that he presents so much unconfirmed hypothesis as fact.
There were massive fires that human set to kill all the animals? Right, that could have happened. It also could be from volcanism, a lightning strike or two koala’s that screwed really fast and didn’t use lube. Maybe there was a disease and the humans burned so much to kill the stench. Maybe the animals used to be smart and kept humans as pets until Mrs, O’Leary’s pet human knocked over a lantern. Waybe it was an attack of fire breathing dragons. He doesn’t know because he wasn’t there.
Likewise, he and his hysterical knee-jerk pals, don’t know that CO2 is conclusively warming the planet anymore than what it would already do. Nor does he know if all his recomendations would work. What he does know is that most people aren’t going to listen to him but those eco-nuts who do might very well hit the tipjar on the way off his site. Which is good because Watson car doesn’t drive on good will.
So, if Mr Watson thinks we really have to do this to save the planet from global warming, because it’s not like the planet ever got warm without our help, the he needs to have the courage of his convictions to adapt the lifestyle that he’s professing. Personally, I have no doubt that he won’t. Just like I have no doubt that even if we wiped everyone out and reduced the carbon footprint to 0 that the planet will continue to warm and cool on it’s own.
Besides, if you got Watson liquored up he’d probably admit that “Daddy needs gasoline.”
Actually commenter tom at Patterico beat me to the observation that Agent Smith gave a better expolanation of this in The Martix.
The comment after tom’s, referring to the fiery ritual of carousel, also strikes me as very PW.
The Church of Environmentalism contains a fatal flaw:
Man is such a very special animal that he must realize that he is not a special animal.
A system based on a self contradictory statement is false.
A Dwarf Iris?
Hey, if it’s between me and my dwarf irises, I’ll let the irises live.
They’re so Cu-u-u-u-te!
This came up over the weekend as well… (start here and scroll) Did you know Victor Davis Hanson was involved with this tribe? Troubling. Maybe Elton John really IS Kiki Dee.
Did you know Victor Davis Hanson was involved with this tribe?
I followed your link and skimmed the article. I didn’t see where VDH could be aligned with Paul Watson types; rather, he’s just noting the trouble with uncontrolled hordes streaming across the border and living under the radar.
Unless I read it wrong.
When it comes to excuses for hating spics, hating people in general is about as good as it gets.
It says Victor Davis Hanson (CAPS Advisory Board Member)<b>… and looking at their press releases it’s clear that they are in synch with the idea that people are inherently problematic when they exist and stuff. And unlike Paul Watson, those CAPS guys actually did voluntarily remove themselves from the equation.
Eco-Fundamentalism: The Religion
1. Dogma: AGW is killing Planet Earth; drastic measures are needed to reverse AGW;
2. Church Heirarchy: Al Gore, Maurice Strong, James Hansen, Heidi Cullen, et. al.;
3. Religious Orders: Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, FOE, et. al.;
3. Priesthood: Various grant-seeking scientists;
4. Preening Preachers: Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Laurie David, Sheryl Crow, et al.;
5. Inquisition: equating nonbelievers with Holocaust deniers, ruining their careers;
6. Orthodoxy: market-capitalism must be destroyed or sharply curtailed;
7. Rituals: myriad lawsuits, myriad doom-laden press releases;
8. Saints: Rachel Carson, David Brower, et al.;
9. Credulous disciples: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Goodman, starlets, liberals, journalists, Prius drivers, scared-to-insomnia school children, et al.
10. Indulgences For Sale: Carbon Credits.
Was there a fraggin full moon this weekend?
As goofy as these people are they certainly aren’t original or unique. This sort of talk has been going on since the early sixties, channeled by Rachael Carson through the Population Bomb.
What all of the 30 year thousand mile green stare people share is the absolute ability to be consistantly wrong about every gloomy prediction.
This is a case where nothing is good about consistantcy.
Captain Planet and his mullet is to blame for this.
http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/c/capplan1.jpg
My third grader was told that “I” was crazy by her fellow soccer players because don’t ascribe the church of Global Warming.
Which, caused me to laugh heartily. I live in a smaller house (w/o air condition) , own far less, and drive a more economical car (w/o air conditioning) that just about everyone on her team.
So, really, as long as you “believe” in something, how you live doesn’t really matter.
Aw, Joseph, you didn’t bring up Captain Freakin’ Planet?
Did you?
“The Power of Heart?” Get the f*** outta here with that weak crap!
Worst.Superhero.Ever.
The mullet makes me giggle, though…
And… If you believe in something and spew tons of carbon traveling the world forming the international church of belief, you can live like a 17th Century European Monarch and the green sheeple will still think that you are an awesome environmentalist.
Al Gore and his legions of Gorons…
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that, after reviewing the science, I think that the scientific community has a level of certainty regarding climate change that we do need to act on it. The science is very sound.
By disbelieving the science, we conservatives allow nuts like Watson to have more weight in the policy debate than they should. Allowing them to monopolize the policy debate is a really Bad Idea and will bite us in the ass.
As it stands, the electorate is becoming much more concerned about the climate change issue. We can make it our own, along with energy security, and run with it. Or we can sit by and be marginalized and watch liberals wreck the economy.
”I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that, after reviewing the science, I think that the scientific community has a level of certainty regarding climate change that we do need to act on it. The science is very sound. ”
I disagree with you, Jon; but ultimately, it doesn’t matter if you are dead wrong or reading the Torah off the Luchot. The issue is not climate change; the issue is giving the Gaian fundamentalists totalitarian powers that they can—and will—use to demote the U.S. to a pre-industrial, Third World country.
Paul, are you talking about Victor D. Hanson? I think his argument is a little complicated than “spic-hating”. That’s a pretty broad over-simplification.
Now, wait a minute. Who, exactly, is “disbelieving” the science? I’m a conservative and I agree that the Earth’s atmospheric temperature has risen ~o.7%C over the last hundred years. But it is far from conclusive that the warming is anthropogenic. Furthermore, the “remedies” being posited for stopping GW are economically disastrous, and, I might add, apparently unachievable since many of the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol (European) are failing to meet their CO2 reduction targets by pretty wide margins and are simply ignoring them.
The key for conservatives is to continue to point this out and demand more scientific debate rather than cede the premise that there is a “consensus.” Scientific theories should be falsifiable. The eco-doomers refuse to even debate their assumptions but continue to let it play out in the media in their favor.
BTW, as I’ve commented before, suppose the world countries enact these GHG reduction protocols and…nothing happens? What if the Earth’s temps start to cool too much? Point is: How will we know if it’s working?
The fact that the eco-freaks think we can set a giant thermostat on the Earth is hubris squared.
Watson wants to reduce the population to 1 billion. The last time the population was a billion was about two hundred years ago. Of course the lucky billion will all be good greenies and practice population control, (or their betters will practice it on them), but their children, or their children’s children, may be less enthusiastic about it, especially with the evidence of an advanced civilization around them.
So, two or three hundred years of peace for poor Mother Gaia before billions of those nasty humans are stomping all over her again. (And if they haven’t burnt all the copies of How Things Work all bets are off.
Even if you go back ten thousand years to when there were only a few million of us, that doesn’t give the poor dear much peace, at least in geological terms.
No, best to wipe the pests out completely. And better get rid of all the primates while your at it. And the monkeys, in fact anything with an opposable thumb. Bears are a bit smart as well, and pigs, and those grinning cetaceans; can’t trust those bastards not to invade the land again. Before you know it they’ll be driving round in SUVs. WTF, get rid of all the animals.
And the plants. Have you seen what those big trees do to their environment in a rainforest. Hog all the sunlight and soak up all the rain before it even hits the ground. And the mess they make when they fall over!
The Earth was a real peaceful place until some fucking nasty bacteria found a way to turn CO2, water and energy into carbohydrates and filled the place full of oxygen. Yeah! Fucking Oxygen! Deadly fucking poisonous to most of the life that was around at the time.
Wipe it down to the bedrock says I. Where are you now Dr Strangelove? Gaia needs you.
Of course what these dumbasses don’t get is that humanity is part of all this change/evolution/nature thing and we actually hold out the promise to extend life in time and space beyond this puny rock and it’s 10 billion year habitable lifespan.
Provided some nihilist fundamentalist doesn’t screw us all first.
My comments are predicated on the assumption JonBuck is not a Moby.
Jon, we’re likelier to be true to our principles, IMHO, by claiming energy independence for our own, as well as “a better life for everybody, not just either elites or victims” (that one we already own), than by jumping on the AGW bandwagon.
Accepting the AGW Rule means postulating (1) that dangerous warming is occurring (it may be occurring, it may be dangerous to us or some other critters or plants, it may be in some degree anthropogenic but then again it may not be, and dangerous-to-some-species climate change has been occurring since the earth started spinning), (2) that we are the primary cause, (3) that we have it in our power to STOP climate from changing. I hang up sharply on (3), though (2) is problematic for me too.
Could we change our “lifestyles” (hate that word!) enough to stop or reverse actual anthropogenic global warming, stipulating for the sake of argument that it’s happening? Maybe… but two things: What would happen to humanity if we actually did change the way we live that much? And what about the possibility that we do all this drastic, possibly-catastrophic-to-human-society change and find that less (or none) of the warming was in fact anthropogenic, and it’s proceeding apace? What then?
I propose becoming adaptable. That’s all. No matter what effect we are or aren’t having on climate right now, climate IS changing and always will change; will we or won’t we adjust to it?
Kelly:
The EU did miss their targets under Kyoto, but they still managed to reduce their emissions by 1.5% to 1990 levels. In the same period, the United States rose 16%. However, our economic growth has been much stronger.
I dislike Kyoto, myself. We wouldn’t ratify it even when Clinton was in office because it did not include provisions for developing countries. Looking at China and how they will surpass us in terms of absolute CO2 emissions this year, our politicians did the right thing.
But the idiocy of the Kyoto Accord is precisely why we cannot allow liberals to monopolize the policy debate.
The IPCC’s latest report has the level of certainty of human-caused climate change at 90%. Frankly, that’s more than enough for me. After my review I found that I really could not dispute the findings. Even the science writer for the Libertarian magazine Reason has reached the same conclusion.
The science is sound. The problem is real.
The problem is that nuts like Watson have tainted the modern environmentalist movement. I agree that parts have become quasi-religious and deserves skepticism on that accord. But for the life of me I cannot imagine that the entire climate change scientific community suffers from the same lunacy that afflicts Watson. Yes, they’re imperfect. But it behooves us to act upon what the experts tell us, until we have evidence to the contrary. Frankly, it’s just not there.
Historically, a warmer and wetter climate is better for life in both profusion and diversity. Colder and dryer, not so good.
And the greenies want to stop global warming?
Crazy!
The way I see it, they are very much the same issue. Imagine no longer needing oil from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Imagine the massive improvement to our trade deficit.
Change is a frightening thing. But there are technologies out there that do not necessarily require us to change our lifestyles.
[url=”http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html” target=”_blank”]
Algae-based biofuels[/url] is a favorite technology of mine. Algae have the potential to produce oil and sugars in massive amounts. Oil for biodiesel to run our trucks, biobutanol (a four carbon alcohol with similar properties as gasoline) to run cars and SUVs.
GreenFuel Technologies is one of several companies working on a process that recycles flue gases from coal and natural gas powerplants through tubular bioreactors. The CO2 supercharges the growth process, the end result is 8,000 gallons per acre of algal oil (Soybeans make 50 gallons).
I’ve spent two years researching alternative energy. Not just because of climate change, but because of Peak Oil. IMO, the solution to both problems is the same: Vast private investment in alternative energy to maintain and improve or quality of life.
Eco-lunatics like Watson can go hang.
Absolutely my point, Jon – we can own the piece of the policy pie that’s actually achievable and clearly beneficial to the nation, without committing to a fool’s errand. Let the private sector loose on the problem – the problem of energy independence rather than the insoluble problem of climate change, since climate change is inevitable with or without us, and we, like every other critter on Spaceship Earth <gag> are largely just along for the ride – and see what develops.
As has been observed elsewhere, nobody had to outlaw the horse and buggy…
The IPCC’s latest report has the level of certainty of human-caused climate change at 90%.
Is this the same IPCC that uncritically used the hockey-stick graph in their report?
Frankly, that’s more than enough for me.
Jon, Jon, Jon. So WHAT if the climate is warming? In the year 1200, the Medieval Warming Period hit its peak, where it was quite a bit warmer than now, and the polar bears somehow managed to survive it. (Notice that this graph comes from the 1990 IPCC report; it was replaced by the infamous hockey stick, which got them LOTS more attention, and now the <a href=”http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf”hockey stick</a>, after being debunked, is missing. Hmm.)
The IPCC was formed for the express purpose of telling the world how to react to AGW  not to find out IF it is happening or not. The last people in the world you should be listening to about climate change is a UN organization, because the UN will take (or create) any opportunity to increase its influence and control.
NOT TO BE TRUSTED!
I’m quite familiar with Climate Audit blog and the problems involving the Hockey Stick. Even the folks over at this Nature blog agree that it’s been debunked.
But I don’t think that invalidates the whole AGW argument.
I anger conservatives and liberals alike with my position, you know.
I’m not so much angry as exasperated.
The Earth has been warming and cooling for millenia. That is beyond doubt. What is in doubt is that humankind can control a system as incomprehensively massive and variable as the global climate system by reducing CO2 emissions which acccount for less than 5% of all GHG. And why no mention of increased solar activity?
And more specifically: How can you verify that our efforts to control the atmospheric temperature are working? By what baseline? How much is too much? How much is not enough? What if the temps start to plummet? Do you rescind your emission targets?
I think it was one of Jeff’s regular commenters (Ric Locke?) likening efforts to stop AGW to sacrificing goats (tongue firmly in cheek). What happens when you run out of goats and the gods haven’t given you what you want?
Speaking of alternative energy, this potential fusion reactor design looks quite promising… if he can get the funding for a scaled-up model.
If it really works as advertised: No more nuclear waste, no more coal plants, no more natural gas plants…
-Paul Watson
Actually the Mennonites do drive, they use electricity, and have phones (even cell phones.) The Amish don’t drive.
I find it amusing that the Sea Shepard site asks you to donate your car, boat or even frequent flier miles. For the Hypocrisy! TM
Aren’t we supposed to call the vertically challenged iris?
If we are wanting to let the Earth and nature speak, wouldn’t it be much faster to let nature kill off people? It wouldn’t require any kind of man-made genocide. We could just stop taking care of people who can’t take care of themselves or who live in areas that can’t sustain them.
There could even be bumper stickers, like “Don’t Fight the Famine” or “AIDS Deaths Aid the Environment”.
I don’t advocate that, but isn’t that the natural way?
Holy gigantic link Batman!
Incitement to murder one person is a crime; incitement to murder a billion is a soundbite.
(with apologies to J. Stalin)
Just enough of me, way too much of you.
THAR SHE BLOWS !!!
If AGW is real, WTF is happening on Mars? Jupiter?
That’s easy, Robert! Haliburton
Didn’t you get the note wrapped around the rock?
REYNOLDS WRAP!!
Dammit Robert, it’s perfectly obvious to any unbiased observer that three planets, warmed by the same sun, heating up simultanoiusly is clearly caused by three different processes…
Um, guys? Mars and Jupiter are further away from the sun than Earth. Obviously what must be happening is the solar wind is blowing our greenhouse gases out into space, polluting the rest of the solar system.
Saturn will be next. Mark mywords.