Environmentalists are liars, And should be dismissed as liars

Trey Givens and I exchanged some comments over at Noodlefood on one of Greg’s posts on the evil and dishonest sleaze that is environmentalism.

In response, he posted up on his blog.

I was going to post a quick comment, but it turned into a full-fledged blog post, so I’m just going to post up here and give him a link.

Without further ado:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, Trey, thanks for the mention.

I like your characterization of my position. ("Dude hates those sons of bitches and with good reason it would seem.") It really fits. <grin>

All I can say is, do some digging at my blog (yes, it is a blog; see the FAQ for details). The entire environmentalist movement is a gigantic fraud. They've been systematically lying to us for years and, when you've seen the evidence that I have, it is a very reasonable conclusion to dismiss them out of hand as liars.

They lied about DDT. They lied about many of the major "toxic spill" scares (including Erin Brockovich; turns out the evidence didn't support the claims of that lawsuit). They lied about nuclear power and three mile island. They lie about ethanol, genetically modified foods, they lie about “organic” foods, they lie about the Amazon rainforest, they lied about “resource depletion,” they lied about “overpopulation,” they lied about recycling, they lied about Alar, and of course they lie about Global Warming.

They lie repeatedly, they lie consistently, and they lie on principle. (see Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz for the philosophical reason for this) There hasn't been a single environmental "cause" that I know of where they *haven't* lied. After a certain point, you'll realize that they are Not To Be Listened To - in the same way and for the same reason that Evangelicals are properly ignored.

No, the claim that "man is causing the earth to warm" is not, by itself, invalid in the way that claims of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are. But suppose that an FSM advocate told you that he had located “scientific” proof that "the universe was created 4000 years ago?" (or whatever the exact biblical number is) That isn't, itself, a claim to magic (as you nicely put it), although it is a wild claim. But wouldn't you feel comfortable ignoring his claim unless he went very far out of his way to prove to you that not only does he not believe in the FSM, but also that he has sound data to back his claim?

Or what about a claim, as I put it earlier, by Mengele, that "Jews cause cancer?" That isn't a magical claim. But wouldn't you dismiss it? Once you see the true depth of the Environmentalist evil and lies, you will know just how apt that comparison is.

I try to put up as much as I can about it, and of course one of the best places to start is aynrand.org’s page on environmentalism.

I appreciate the distinction between an actual environmentalist ideologue ("Deep Green") and someone who does not hate man but is merely acting as a mouthpiece for those who do. No, many scientists acting on Green premises are not misanthropes - but some or many of the assumptions that they make *are* in fact premises created by those misanthropes.

I believe Stalin used the term "useful idiot."

And, heck, you can even look at it like this: there is a distinction between a "sunday Christian" and a fundamentalist evangelical, and perhaps for now the former outnumber the latter, but does that make it justified to declare *Christianity* is a benevolent, or non-evil movement/ideology? Of course not!

Certainly I could label an *individual* Christian as harmless or well-meaning, if he were mostly committed to reason, just as you could label an *individual* with some degree of environmentalism as well-intentioned. But both movements, philosophically, are certainly anti-man and anti-life-on-earth.

While the label “Deep Green” has its uses, I would be careful with throwing it around. It could be construed to imply that environmentalism as a whole is “okay,” but a few “extremists” (Deep Greens) are "perverting" it (*cough*religionofpeace*cough*). Nothing could be farther from the truth: environmentalism is rotten to the core.

…and with the environmentalists now declaring jihad on “deniers,” I think you’ll find the comparison to religion is more than appropriate.

-Inspector

Trey's got a response up. I responded to it in his comments section.

...and more here as well.

And at least some mainstream opposition to environmentalism is springing up:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638

Real science is nice... may Al Gore eat shit in hell.

I'll drink to that!

Trey has been busy!

More here and here.

My responses below (with excerpt quotes but you really should go to his blog and read the whole thing):

Trey,

Yes in that sense you are right. Unless you are a climate scientist, you can't really "smell" that claim on its face, as such. You can, however, "smell" the environmentalists.

...and they *stink*

If an environmentalist told me the *sky* was *blue,* I would open the door to check and make sure it hadn't turned purple while I wasn't looking.

What I mean is that you have to have the context of it being an environmentalist claim, and of how they lied about global cooling before it and are trying to squash dissent and the many obfuscations in the GW debate and everything else I listed and didn't list.

Some claims of theirs, like stuff about Gaia and Animal Rights and "raping the earth" and such most certainly *are* in the "outside reality" field.

But yeah, a lot of it is more like "Intelligent Design" stuff, where it isn't magical on its face, but you can quickly see what it's all about (religion) and dismiss it.

I mean, sometimes you can tell when someone is making a religiously rooted claim, even if it doesn't have any magic immediately contained within it, and you can dismiss them on that ground.

That's where the 'viros are at. So I really think they are in exactly the same position as the religionists.

Trey,

...

Basically it's a question of your context of knowledge. Conceivably, there are people out there who don't have the necessary context to dismiss the-earth-is-4000-years-old claims in the way that you do. Certainly, with the ones out there who are "about as sharp as a sack full of wet mice," (*snicker*) this would be the case.

But once you do have that context (in this case: basic, grade-school science), then you can dismiss on "smell," as you put it.

The particular knowledge necessary to dismiss Environmentalists may be different, but the kinds of claims they make and why they make them are exactly the same as religious rationalizers. When you do have the context to dismiss them, then you do in fact end up doing so in the same way and for the same reason as you do Religionists.

It's simply a question of degree, not of kind.

And with both of them, once you know that they are philosophically in favor of lying then you can throw out their garbage (as arbitrary; i.e. "not even wrong") the instant you realize what the ideology of the speaker is.

Yeah, you would think so... but that's not actually true any more. Unfortunately. These people have completely taken over the scientific establishment (government funding; who knew...) and so are allowed to spew nonsense like that with the cloak of legitimacy.

*That's* the major problem. Regular folks who aren't in on that fact don't realize the degree of corruption and so think that maybe this whole global warming thing must have at least *some* truth to it, because after all, scientists are held to *standards* of truth... aren't they?

Well, no they aren't. Not any more. Not if they gave the Environmentalist license to lie at the door.

When I say "They've been systematically lying to us for years," I'm not exaggerating. It really is *that* bad.

[Update: Another response.]