Why the heck would 'environmentalism' belong in Science???
Almost astounding the frequency with which one finds seemingly intelligent adults who have accepted the indoctrination of the bogus 'science' of environmentalism.
It's Politics.... a flimsily disguised totalitarian scheme.....
Professor Wallace Kaufman, former president of several environmental groups, verifies all the things that those of us who laugh at the whacko warmists have been saying for years.
Check out some of the truths he acknowledges in his book "No Turning Back."
Here, the professor discusses the modern environmental movement as a cautionary tale.
1. He explains the environmental movement's antipathy to capitalism....the same view that Marxism has: "Their solutions [are to] increase regulation and government control, consume less, slow down technology,...buy less, drive less, eat little or no meat, live colder in the winter and hotter in the summer, have fewer children, decrease competition..."
2. Get the idea about these folks? They are out of touch with modernity.
"After thirty years in the environmental movement, I am worried athat as it gains power,it cares less and less about reason and science. Its influence on movies, academia, and literature has already turned history into fiction and propaganda....it has started to exercise power in ways that may do more harm to nature than good."
This is a guy who has his head screwed on right!
3. And, as one form of Liberalism, it exhibits the same quasi-religious characteristics as Liberalism does.
" Over the past twenty years the environmental meetings I attend as a journalist have seemed more and more like church meetings....a little like having a single religious sect write student textbooks. In our meetings, they talk about 'converting' America and not letting science interfere with a 'spiritual understanding' of nature. They talk about creatures being 'sacred....The pulpit rhetoric has become the standard in environmental writing and teaching.
A certain angry and violent language accompanies the religious language....said that the only way to get the public's attention is to 'hit them with a two-by-four.
No on expects to see environmentalist sin the streets with two-by-fours, sort of a fascist Green Shirt movement, but their language is not the language of reason..."
Perhaps some of the indoctrinated can begin to see themselves as normal folks see them.
4. Then there is the extremism that accompanies the religious fervor! There can be no limits, no ability to prioritize!
"...simple-minded thinking can lead to expensive mistakes ....Few public campaigns have cost more money than those against toxic chemicals....Dr. Bruce Ames, a biochemiset and inventor of many tests for cancer-causing chemicals, has said, "When looking as caused of cancer...pollution is almost irrelevant."
"Misconceptions about environmental pollution, pesticides and the causes of cancer (NCPA policy report)," Dr. Bruce Ames, p. 34.
a. "E. Donald Elliott, a Yale law professor and former EPA general counsel, said "I have never seen a single rule where we weren't paying at least $100 million per life [saved] for some portion of the rule."
Forbes, "You Can't Get There From Here," July 6, 1992, Brimelow and Spencer.
b. "Some rules, he said, cost more than $30 billion. EPA rules passed in 1990 about wood preservatives have cost $5.7 trillion for each life they were estimated to save. according to John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas.
Ibid.
Does more harm than good, costs outrageous amounts, increases the size of government, and de facto steals private property via regulation.
Who are the morons who support this????
Almost astounding the frequency with which one finds seemingly intelligent adults who have accepted the indoctrination of the bogus 'science' of environmentalism.
It's Politics.... a flimsily disguised totalitarian scheme.....
Professor Wallace Kaufman, former president of several environmental groups, verifies all the things that those of us who laugh at the whacko warmists have been saying for years.
Check out some of the truths he acknowledges in his book "No Turning Back."
Here, the professor discusses the modern environmental movement as a cautionary tale.
1. He explains the environmental movement's antipathy to capitalism....the same view that Marxism has: "Their solutions [are to] increase regulation and government control, consume less, slow down technology,...buy less, drive less, eat little or no meat, live colder in the winter and hotter in the summer, have fewer children, decrease competition..."
2. Get the idea about these folks? They are out of touch with modernity.
"After thirty years in the environmental movement, I am worried athat as it gains power,it cares less and less about reason and science. Its influence on movies, academia, and literature has already turned history into fiction and propaganda....it has started to exercise power in ways that may do more harm to nature than good."
This is a guy who has his head screwed on right!
3. And, as one form of Liberalism, it exhibits the same quasi-religious characteristics as Liberalism does.
" Over the past twenty years the environmental meetings I attend as a journalist have seemed more and more like church meetings....a little like having a single religious sect write student textbooks. In our meetings, they talk about 'converting' America and not letting science interfere with a 'spiritual understanding' of nature. They talk about creatures being 'sacred....The pulpit rhetoric has become the standard in environmental writing and teaching.
A certain angry and violent language accompanies the religious language....said that the only way to get the public's attention is to 'hit them with a two-by-four.
No on expects to see environmentalist sin the streets with two-by-fours, sort of a fascist Green Shirt movement, but their language is not the language of reason..."
Perhaps some of the indoctrinated can begin to see themselves as normal folks see them.
4. Then there is the extremism that accompanies the religious fervor! There can be no limits, no ability to prioritize!
"...simple-minded thinking can lead to expensive mistakes ....Few public campaigns have cost more money than those against toxic chemicals....Dr. Bruce Ames, a biochemiset and inventor of many tests for cancer-causing chemicals, has said, "When looking as caused of cancer...pollution is almost irrelevant."
"Misconceptions about environmental pollution, pesticides and the causes of cancer (NCPA policy report)," Dr. Bruce Ames, p. 34.
a. "E. Donald Elliott, a Yale law professor and former EPA general counsel, said "I have never seen a single rule where we weren't paying at least $100 million per life [saved] for some portion of the rule."
Forbes, "You Can't Get There From Here," July 6, 1992, Brimelow and Spencer.
b. "Some rules, he said, cost more than $30 billion. EPA rules passed in 1990 about wood preservatives have cost $5.7 trillion for each life they were estimated to save. according to John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas.
Ibid.
Does more harm than good, costs outrageous amounts, increases the size of government, and de facto steals private property via regulation.
Who are the morons who support this????
