The Great Global Warming Swindle

[ewv 0]

I'm incredulous about this part:

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

So, warming is caused by man's pollution and cooling is caused by man's pollution. Man is just terrible.

They have been switching from 'Globalwarming' to 'Climate Change' in order to more explicitly exploit all kinds of complaints about weather. Too many people are not buying the line that warming causes cooling and everything else, so they change the terminology. But they literally do blame it all on warming.

The 1940-1970 anti-correlation also required an invented rationalism to patch the theory on the fly, used to conveniently promote other government regulations at the same time. No matter what happens, they take credit for it if its good and blame their enemies otherwise, all the while insisting that everything they say is "science" because they say so.

[ewv 0]

I often visit "Wretchard's" "Belmont Club" website... Recently he's taken on the global warming hacks...

He also referred to an interesting debate, for which there is a full transcript (pdf), held on March 14 in NYC.

Richard Lindzen, Michael Crichton and Philip Stott debated viros Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt and Richard Somerville on the resolution "Global warming is not a crisis". Lindzen was especially good, and the far left Union of Concerned Scientists' Brenda Ekwurzel was incoherently hysterical.

Before the debate only 30% of the audience thought there is not a "crisis", with 57% believing there is and 13% undecided. After the debate those believing there is no crisis rose from 30% to 57%, those believing there is a crisis fell from 57% to 42% and the undecideds fell from 13% to 12%.

[jdperren 0]

Overall he’s philosophically mixed, which is probably why Peikoff calls him a "zero" under his DIM system.

Perhaps this is better said on the DIM thread, but wouldn't this be a good reason to doubt the validitiy of DIM? If Rush Limbaugh, with the largest radio audience on talk radio, influencing millions daily, is a cultural zero then who would count?

But, having listened to the DIM lectures, I didn't hear him say that (about Limbaugh); are you saying this is what he (Peikoff) would say, if asked? Or did I miss him saying that...?

[Thales 0]

Perhaps this is better said on the DIM thread, but wouldn't this be a good reason to doubt the validitiy of DIM? If Rush Limbaugh, with the largest radio audience on talk radio, influencing millions daily, is a cultural zero then who would count?

That is a good question, one that I have myself. I was a bit surprised by Peikoff's statement.

But, having listened to the DIM lectures, I didn't hear him say that (about Limbaugh); are you saying this is what he (Peikoff) would say, if asked? Or did I miss him saying that...?

Yes, he did say it. I can't recall where in the lecture, perhaps it's in my notes, but he was talking about Dr. Laura as an M1, and then briefly made a point about Limbaugh, without going into details. He really likes Dr. Laura, but I got the impression wasn't so impressed with Limbaugh. He even pronounced his name wrong and mistakenly believes Dr. Laura has more listeners.

[jdperren 0]

That is a good question, one that I have myself. I was a bit surprised by Peikoff's statement.

Yes, he did say it. I can't recall where in the lecture, perhaps it's in my notes, but he was talking about Dr. Laura as an M1, and then briefly made a point about Limbaugh, without going into details. He really likes Dr. Laura, but I got the impression wasn't so impressed with Limbaugh. He even pronounced his name wrong and mistakenly believes Dr. Laura has more listeners.

Interesting. I'll have to listen again. Interesting, too, that he (still?) likes Dr. Laura. I knew that he had said some complimentary things on his radio program many years ago, but I thought he had been disabused of that fairly quickly by some associates. Odd that he's never caught on, then, to how completely Kantian her ethics are. In terms of pure evil, I would put her right up there with Hitler Clinton... oops, Freudian slip. That's Hilary Clintwood, no... well, whatever her name is.

Anyway, back to the viros and their particular lunacy.

[PhilO 0]

I have never liked "Dr. Laura" (who is not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so in the context of her radio show it's a deliberate effort to con listeners). From what I've heard, her show largely consists of making rationalistic and outright vicious criticism or condemnations of many, perhaps most, of her callers, and on the basis of a completely duty-driven ethics supplied by incomplete information. Rush, despite his faults, is a million times better.

This page has some interesting commentary on "Dr. Laura". Draw your own conclusions about her fans. All I'll say is: reality sure is consistent, and people are drawn to those who share their sense of life.

Schlessinger's doctorate is in physiology, not psychiatry or psychology, although she does have a license in marriage, family, and child counseling. She offered her hard-nosed advice in small Southern California radio markets for more than 20 years until her show became internationally syndicated in 1994. Schlessinger, 60, and her second husband, Lew Bishop, have gotten rich promoting her monthly magazine and her best-selling books, as well as T-shirts and other Dr. Laura merchandise. She and Bishop have a son, Deryk, and she begins each program saying "I'm my kid's mom." She is ardently antiabortion and antifeminist and insists that society is running amok because there are so many working parents. In her estimation, any sexual expression other than that between a man and a woman is rending the country's moral fiber.

Although her views may be distasteful to many people, Schlessinger is an honest voice in a culture that goes out of its way to varnish the truth, said Laura Nader, a professor of anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley.

"(Her callers) are people who are lost, who can't talk to their own families. She tells them straight from the shoulder, at a time when people are falsely polite, 'You're a lousy father' or whatever," Nader said. "This is a very psychologized country, where everything is touchy-feely. Nobody (else) tells people they're no good. She tells them right off, and it doesn't cost them anything."

The psychological price could be steep, though, if, in an 80-second radio conversation Schlessinger's snap judgments are wrong. But she says she doesn't do therapy; she does morality. An Orthodox Jew who grew up in a secular household and embraced Judaism later in life, she calls herself a prophet, preaching the Ten Commandments as the antidote to violence, child abuse, and an "anything goes" value system. Above all else, she brooks no whining, especially from women, whom she admonishes to have "brains and guts." You got yourself into your situation; grow up, stop sniveling, and take responsibility.

"She has a very strong sense of right and wrong in a climate of moral relativism. Her perspective is rooted in the Bible -- that holds a lot of appeal," said Leah Rose, a conservative Christian who listens to Dr. Laura about once a week. Among other things, Schlessinger reinforces Rose's views that, although one should show compassion, homosexuality is wrong.

"Being an Orthodox Jew, she's very well versed in the Bible and Christian tradition and Christian laws," said Rose, a stay-at-home mom with four children in Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania. "She really does make you think, even if you disagree with her and even if you don't like her style. She talks about what's right, over what feels good."

(emphasis mine)

[Jack Wakeland 0]

I predict global warming hysteria will increase...

There are no signs of a trend reversal, this mere documentary is like looking for an F117 Nighthawk on a radar of the current trend.

...most consistent environmentalists are still lying in front of bulldozers, driving their boats around whales, and opposing every human effort to use the planet in the utmost observable fashion, and explicitly scorning at 'deniers' like us with such righteousness that the 'moderate' environmentalists wakeup to their contradictions...

...I predict an increase in explicit calls to put people like us on Luxembourgs style trials and a move towards more violent environmentalist...attacks...[possibly terrorist attacks]

...on Tuesday Texas Energy, the largest electrical energy company in Texas had announced it will be the target of the largest private equity buyout in history. Later on in the day TXU energy announced that once and for all, the year long controversy over the 11 proposed coal plants was officially over, that they will not implement 11 new coal plants in Texas.

I agree with your comments on the weight and depth of environmentalism's cultural/political influence and the meaning of the global warming debate.

Right now we’re seeing the first signs of major political opposition to carbon controls and we’re seeing the first major cracks in the psuedo-scientific argument for man-made global warming. We're seeing brave volunteers forming the first legion of cultural/political hereos who will defnd civilization against Visigoths.

But the global warming myth is not dying. The political hysteria generated by that myth has not yet hit us with its full force. The Visigoth hordes are still massing.

(I don't agree with your comments about the ugly little stock market slides of the past month. With the exception of single-day and single week panics – like the one that followed the 9/11 attacks -- world capital markets do not move on political news unless it relates directly to the prospects for corporate profits.)

...on Tuesday Texas Energy, the largest electrical energy company in Texas had announced it will be the target of the largest private equity buyout in history. Later on in the day TXU energy announced that once and for all, the year long controversy over the 11 proposed coal plants was officially over, that they will not implement 11 new coal plants in Texas.

This is very interesting information. I’ve been poking around for evidence that global warming pressures are beginning to produce major reductions in coal power generation. So far the effects of environmentalist myths on this technology have been subtle – subtle, that is, relative to the “final solution” rhetoric that has been aimed at the industry.

While the fraction of electricity consumed in the U.S. generated by burning coal has slowly declined in the U.S. since the 1970s, the decline has been driven by the economic advantages seen in other power sources. One of these advantages has been the ability to get around SO2, NOx, and (now) heavy metals emissions limits and strip mining regulations. But the advantage of coal's chief competitor has been the reduction of risk for profit-making ventures from using of a less capital intensive method of production.

Over the past 25 years, coal’s primary economic competitor has been natural gas. The chief advantage of natural-gas-fired power plants has been low capital investment. In choosing natural gas over coal, power producers are able to buy two to four times the production capacity for the same investment dollar. In an industry that was experimenting with private ownership of the means of production for the first time in the 1990s, the risks of entering an uncharted competitive marketplace needed to be minimized. For the new profit-making producers, natural gas power was the answer.

From 1995 to 2005 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html ), American electricity production increased by 25%. While electricity production from nuclear power increased by 22% (by power uprate and increased availability) and electricity production from hydro remained unchanged, electricity production from gas-fueled power stations increased by 65%. This took a bite out of coal power, but electricity production from coal-fired power plants increased by 19% nonetheless.

Under the banner of global warming, the general war against man-made power has not yet crippled coal power. But there are early indications that a serious attempt on the life of all coal-fired electrical generating plants will be made. In January, the California Public Utilities Commission prohibited the importation of coal-generated electricity. Since California phased out all coal-fired electrical generating plants over 20 years ago, that majority left-of-center state will become the first “no-coal” state on the continent. This sets an evil precedent.

The former Marxists (and the not so former Marxists) who makeup the environmental movement are nihilists who hate the good for being the good. They want to re-write reality to reverse the victory of global capitalism over their precious dream for an ideal collectivist society in Russia. In their re-write, the fall of socialism will end up causing the fall of capitalism, too. Instead of the historical forces behind the “power relationships” among the (supposedly) warring economic classes of society, the monster they conjure for the destruction of civilization is the earth herself.

Gaia will avenge the fall of the Soviet Union.

Environmentalism is a system of rationalizations for criminal schemes under which defeated Marxists still get to destroy man’s greatest civilization. The communists-turned-environmentalists seek to legislate and regulate the destruction of the industrial machine upon which capitalism's civilization stands because they know – in the heart of hearts – that their spectacularly false predictions of disaster will not pan out. Deep down, they know that Gaia won’t do it for them. They know that if the egg is to be broken for their omelet of mass-destruction, they’ll have to crack it themselves.

[MichaelJ 0]

Good post, Jack. What makes it worse about the nihilists is they know on some level that it is so terribly wrong but they can't bear to admit it to themselves, hence the evasion that they are saving civilisation with these actions.

[PhilO 0]

[...] The former Marxists (and the not so former Marxists) who makeup the environmental movement are nihilists who hate the good for being the good. They want to re-write reality to reverse the victory of global capitalism over their precious dream for an ideal collectivist society in Russia. In their re-write, the fall of socialism will end up causing the fall of capitalism, too. Instead of the historical forces behind the “power relationships” among the (supposedly) warring economic classes of society, the monster they conjure for the destruction of civilization is the earth herself.

Gaia will avenge the fall of the Soviet Union. [...]

Interesting observations, and well written.

[Stussy88 0]

Here is a response to the "Great Global Warming Swindle"

They are trying to undermine the data used.

The real global warming swindle

I'm incredulous about this part:

So, warming is caused by man's pollution and cooling is caused by man's pollution. Man is just terrible.

Interesting to note, those attacking the film, say the figures were all wrong but fail to offer any proof of the same.

As for the pollutants being cooling agents, there was a similar thing a couple of guys were advocating over here, industrial towers and apparently aerosols?

Now in the 80's the greens kicked me to death for using aerosols because I was causing an ozone hole or something (?) so we all had to switch to roll-on deodorants (or the green/hippie choice) smelling bad.

Turns out I was doing good after all, whilst not smelling all stinky and thereby helping the immediate environment two feet from me. I shall await their letter of retraction and apology.

[ewv 0]

Right now we’re seeing the first signs of major political opposition to carbon controls and we’re seeing the first major cracks in the psuedo-scientific argument for man-made global warming. We're seeing brave volunteers forming the first legion of cultural/political hereos who will defnd civilization against Visigoths.

But the global warming myth is not dying. The political hysteria generated by that myth has not yet hit us with its full force. The Visigoth hordes are still massing.

The Senate overwhelmingly defeated the treaty in the 1990's. The viros moved their efforts elsewhere where they could make progress, such as internationally and in some states which now have their own viro foreign policy. We are seeing a lot more now on the national scene because the Democrats are back in control of Congress. It will be worse when they grab the White House in addition. Much worse. People have been fighting Globulwarming controls all along, but are seen more now because the other side is in power, which is why the controversy is more visible.

Under the banner of global warming, the general war against man-made power has not yet crippled coal power. But there are early indications that a serious attempt on the life of all coal-fired electrical generating plants will be made.

A strategic goal of the viros is in fact to eliminate the use of coal.

In January, the California Public Utilities Commission prohibited the importation of coal-generated electricity. Since California phased out all coal-fired electrical generating plants over 20 years ago, that majority left-of-center state will become the first “no-coal” state on the continent. This sets an evil precedent.

There is no coal in Maine. I don't remember if any coal generated electricity is transmitted in. I will watch for the next time the utility company sends out its required list showing PC energy sources. Maine is very bad right now because the progressive left is completely in charge of state government, showing what it would be like nationally, but this is ignored because Maine is regarded as an out of the way inconsequential place which no one pays attention to.

[Jay P 0]

A strategic goal of the viros is in fact to eliminate the use of coal.

That's true, but from what I see around here, their strategic goal is more like the destruction of any electricity generated by any means.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, the ecofreaks are constantly advocating the destruction of hydroelectric dams to "save the fish". (At least one small hydroelectric dam on the Olympic Peninsula has already been removed.) This is in spite of the fact that the vast majority of our electric energy comes from this source. (And as it is now, federal fish-protection programs force the hydropower dams to spill vast quantities of water without running it through the turbines.)

Nuclear power here? Forget it; the leftist protesters would never allow any more of those plants to be built. (And yet, the one nuclear plant in the state quietly supplies 9% of my electric energy; second only to hydroelectric, which is at 80%.)

Coal? There is I think one large coal-fired plant in Washington, which is constantly under attack by the ecofreaks. In fact, there was talk recently in our legislature of copying California's action and outlawing the importation of coal-generated electricity.

Environmentalists here have also opposed the construction of natural-gas-fired plants. And they even opposed the construction of a plant that would have burned "biomass" (wood-waste). (Supposedly, that's one of their favorite sources of electricity, but when it came time to build one, they blocked it - even though it would have generated only a measley 10 megawatts.)

Last election, the voters in Washington approved an initiative that will require, by 2020, that 15% of our electricity be generated by "renewable" sources. (This is impractical stuff like wind and solar, because by this legislation, most hydroelectric energy does not count as renewable.) (Yes, this is a left-leaning state, but I still honestly do not know how the voters here could be so stupid as to vote for a scheme like this. Most people I know do not like it when their utility bills go up, but they seem completely oblivious to the fact that this is exactly what will happen if the environmentalists keep destroying our sources of energy.)

There isn't one practical source of electricity that the ecofreaks won't try to kill. I'm sure if windpower became practical, they'd try to kill it too. (In fact, I remember hearing about plans for a "wind-farm" being scaled back in California because of the threat to birds.)

What are the vast majority of people counting on to make the lights come on when they turn the switch?

[PhilO 0]

What are the vast majority of people counting on to make the lights come on when they turn the switch?

"You'll do something, Mr. Rearden."

[ewv 0]

That's true, but from what I see around here, their strategic goal is more like the destruction of any electricity generated by any means.

Yes, but they work out specific strategies with timetables, legislation, litigation, etc. for specific targets and the entire coal industry is one of them.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, the ecofreaks are constantly advocating the destruction of hydroelectric dams to "save the fish". (At least one small hydroelectric dam on the Olympic Peninsula has already been removed.) This is in spite of the fact that the vast majority of our electric energy comes from this source. (And as it is now, federal fish-protection programs force the hydropower dams to spill vast quantities of water without running it through the turbines.)

They are already tearing down dams in Maine, and I think in the northwest, too, not just advocating.

Nuclear power here? Forget it; the leftist protesters would never allow any more of those plants to be built. (And yet, the one nuclear plant in the state quietly supplies 9% of my electric energy; second only to hydroelectric, which is at 80%.)

The last one in Maine is already gone.

Coal? There is I think one large coal-fired plant in Washington, which is constantly under attack by the ecofreaks. In fact, there was talk recently in our legislature of copying California's action and outlawing the importation of coal-generated electricity.

Environmentalists here have also opposed the construction of natural-gas-fired plants.

They are preventing any LNG ports in Maine, and have recently collaborated with leftists in the Canadian government, which has threatened to blockade ports in eastern Maine along the Canadian border .

And they even opposed the construction of a plant that would have burned "biomass" (wood-waste). (Supposedly, that's one of their favorite sources of electricity, but when it came time to build one, they blocked it - even though it would have generated only a measley 10 megawatts.)

The timber industry is being destroyed in Maine, and the supply of wood chips will go with it.

Last election, the voters in Washington approved an initiative that will require, by 2020, that 15% of our electricity be generated by "renewable" sources. (This is impractical stuff like wind and solar, because by this legislation, most hydroelectric energy does not count as renewable.) (Yes, this is a left-leaning state, but I still honestly do not know how the voters here could be so stupid as to vote for a scheme like this. Most people I know do not like it when their utility bills go up, but they seem completely oblivious to the fact that this is exactly what will happen if the environmentalists keep destroying our sources of energy.)

Maine already has quota requirements for PC energy. It is also part of the New England foreign policy collaborative self-imposing the equivalent of the Kyoto treaty. That will take care of everything.

There isn't one practical source of electricity that the ecofreaks won't try to kill. I'm sure if windpower became practical, they'd try to kill it too. (In fact, I remember hearing about plans for a "wind-farm" being scaled back in California because of the threat to birds.)

Most of the viros are opposing wind power in Maine and have blocked several attempts. It's not just the 'birds'; they don't windmills messing up the view.

What are the vast majority of people counting on to make the lights come on when they turn the switch?

Blame it on George Bush, vote for more taxes and make sure no oil is drilled in ANWAR.

Most people aren't paying any attention to this trend and know nothing about it. You can predict how they will act by observing the trend as power blackouts become more common and less startling -- they blame the inconvenience on everything but the cause -- George Bush, greedy oil companies, over consumption, greedy power utilities, lack of conservation and "recycling", "Enron", "Haliburton" conspiracies, Cheney, etc. etc. Jack Wakeland wrote an excellent article in the Intellectual Activist a few years ago on the California shortages.

[jdperren 0]

What are the vast majority of people counting on to make the lights come on when they turn the switch?

You'll do something, Mr. Rearden

Regrettably, among some of these wackos, it's worse than that. I don't have the reference ready to hand, but only a few months ago, a junior academic associated with UCLA and his attorney partner published an article saying that electric lighting was like a drug we were addicted to and we should get over it. Disgusting.

Viropaganists are the most primitive thugs in the so-called intellectual sphere today, a dozen times worse than the most ardent communist. (The latter at least gave lip service to the value of science.)

[ewv 0]

Viropaganists are the most primitive thugs in the so-called intellectual sphere today, a dozn times worse than the most ardent communist. (The latter at least gave lip service to the value of science.)

The communists at least claimed to be for the "people". The viros have dropped even that pretense.

[jdperren 0]

The communists at least claimed to be for the "people". The viros have dropped even that pretense.

Good point. Wish I'd said it.

[Vespasiano 0]

The director of "The Great Global Warming Swindle", Martin Durkin, has responded to some of his critics his critics at The Telgraph.

The global warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?

[ewv 0]

by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal (no link):

Gore declined to debate him in Copenhagen last month and yesterday used every trick in the book to deny him equal treatment before the Senate committee.

The Anti-Gore

You could never tell from the news coverage, but there was a second witness on global warming yesterday on Capitol Hill.

Normally Bjorn Lomborg would be just the kind of figure to intrigue the media -- an openly gay vegetarian from Denmark whose book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is an international bestseller. Mr. Lomborg, a professor of statistics, believes global warming is real and man-made but that command-and-control solutions to curb industrial activity are ruinously expensive and that resources would be far better devoted to adapting to a changing climate. Tackling such massive public-health problems as the lack of clean drinking water for the world's poor, he says, would deliver much greater bang for the buck than trying to influence climate.

In his testimony, Mr. Lomborg, casually dressed in Adidas and a black polo shirt, argued that "statements about the strong, ominous and immediate consequences of global warming are often wildly exaggerated." He urged fellow environmentalists to realize that "climate change is actually one of the issues where we can do the least good first."

But Mr. Lomborg was sandbagged by the filibustering Mr. Gore, who insisted on giving a 30-minute opening statement before the House committee. During his verbose answers, Mr. Gore invoked the Battle of Thermopylae in ancient Greece as well as homespun anecdotes about growing up in Tennessee. By the time he had finished, the hearing was ready to adjourn for lunch without calling on Mr. Lomborg. He sat in the empty hearing room munching on a meatless Subway sandwich and marveling at the madness of the media crowds, whom he correctly doubted would return for his testimony. Nonetheless, he is optimistic that "common sense" will eventually prevail on climate policy. "The science isn't there, and the politics behind the current 'crisis' can only keep it aloft for so long," he once told me.

The problem is, having observed the hot air and posturing in the hearing room yesterday, the supply of political humbug churned out by the American political system may exceed even Mr. Lomborg's generous estimates.

-- John Fund

[Matt 0]

I thought about putting this one in the joke box. I have never seen such an example of projection.

http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Reason-Al-Go...rd_i=1000065691

[ewv 0]

I thought about putting this one in the joke box. I have never seen such an example of projection.

Except it's no joke. They are trying to steal "science" and "reason" as synonyms for "environmentalism" and their unacknowledged fascism.

[Carlos 0]

That's true, but from what I see around here, their strategic goal is more like the destruction of any electricity generated by any means.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, the ecofreaks are constantly advocating the destruction of hydroelectric dams to "save the fish". (At least one small hydroelectric dam on the Olympic Peninsula has already been removed.) This is in spite of the fact that the vast majority of our electric energy comes from this source. (And as it is now, federal fish-protection programs force the hydropower dams to spill vast quantities of water without running it through the turbines.)

Nuclear power here? Forget it; the leftist protesters would never allow any more of those plants to be built. (And yet, the one nuclear plant in the state quietly supplies 9% of my electric energy; second only to hydroelectric, which is at 80%.)

Coal? There is I think one large coal-fired plant in Washington, which is constantly under attack by the ecofreaks. In fact, there was talk recently in our legislature of copying California's action and outlawing the importation of coal-generated electricity.

Environmentalists here have also opposed the construction of natural-gas-fired plants. And they even opposed the construction of a plant that would have burned "biomass" (wood-waste). (Supposedly, that's one of their favorite sources of electricity, but when it came time to build one, they blocked it - even though it would have generated only a measley 10 megawatts.)

Last election, the voters in Washington approved an initiative that will require, by 2020, that 15% of our electricity be generated by "renewable" sources. (This is impractical stuff like wind and solar, because by this legislation, most hydroelectric energy does not count as renewable.) (Yes, this is a left-leaning state, but I still honestly do not know how the voters here could be so stupid as to vote for a scheme like this. Most people I know do not like it when their utility bills go up, but they seem completely oblivious to the fact that this is exactly what will happen if the environmentalists keep destroying our sources of energy.)

There isn't one practical source of electricity that the ecofreaks won't try to kill. I'm sure if windpower became practical, they'd try to kill it too. (In fact, I remember hearing about plans for a "wind-farm" being scaled back in California because of the threat to birds.)

What are the vast majority of people counting on to make the lights come on when they turn the switch?

I think that somewhere deep down inside they (viro's) don't want any lights on, anywhere.

But for non-viro's who would support getting rid of coal-plants only to gripe about rising electricity bills, I think that is an excellent example of what happens when people don't live by principles.

Their choices are guided not by principles, but by range of the moment "practicality" with no sight beyond the immediate moment in terms of consequences and long-term changes. Not surprisingly, they end up with highly contradictory thoughts and actions.

"Ban a coal power-plant to clean up the air and save the environment? Sure, that sounds good to me"

*half a year later*

"Why are my #@$%*% electricity-bills going up?! I can't afford this !!"

*next election*

"Money's tight because of rising bills, so I'll vote for this guy who's going to look out for the little man by raising taxes on the wealthy corporations"

*year later*

"I lost my job because the factory closed. The @#$# bureaucrats gouged us to death with fees, regulations and taxes and we went bankrupt. That isn't right "

[jdperren 0]

Except it's no joke. They are trying to steal "science" and "reason" as synonyms for "environmentalism" and their unacknowledged fascism.

I can't think of any more loathsome creatures in the past 100 years or more than viros. But I find that the word facism gets tossed around a lot. I'd be interesting in hearing a definition (one that fits this circumstance) from someone I respect, such as you evw.

Jeff

[jdperren 0]

I thought about putting this one in the joke box. I have never seen such an example of projection.

http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Reason-Al-Go...rd_i=1000065691

Equally interesting is the respectful, calm addendum biography and lack of any official review. Most of the 'climate change' books from so-called skeptics get the most vicious reviews from Reed Business Books, of all sources.

Clearly, the word reason is meaningless in contemporary society when both Gore and Reich can advocate it, while advocating the most anti-human policies.

[ewv 0]

I can't think of any more loathsome creatures in the past 100 years or more than viros. But I find that the word facism gets tossed around a lot. I'd be interesting in hearing a definition (one that fits this circumstance) from someone I respect, such as you evw.

Jeff

Fascism is a form of socialism in which private property is nominally acknowledged, but in which the state in fact has absolute power. Ayn Rand said many times that this country is getting fascism with communist slogans. There isn't much now overtly promoting communism, but the old slogans are still here, wrapped in the rhetoric of the viros and more generally of the progressive left as the country continues to move towards fascism.

See especially these essays by Ayn Rand:

CUI

The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus

lecture issued in pamplet 1963

The Fascist New Frontier

The Ayn Rand Letter

Vol. 1, No. 3 November 8, 1971

"The Moratorium On Brains"--Part II

The Ayn Rand Letter

Vol. 1, No. 20 July 3, 1972

The Dead End

For an historical account of the rise of fascism see As We Go Marching, 1944, by John T. Flynn (also author of the excellent The Roosevelt Myth). Flynn was alarmed by the sympathy for fascist principles by the Roosevelt Administration and by European leaders beyond Germany and Italy, but he sometimes confuses the terminology with "capitalism".

Especially in rural areas today, which are under the worst attacks against individuals by the viros seeking to impose social and economic controls, viros are known as "eco-fascists" and "nature-nazis". This doesn't make them members of the Nazi party, but we are dealing here in essentials and the modern viro movement had its roots in mid 19th century Germany under the same cultural and philosophical influence of the later Nazis.

The founder of the ecology movement (which it was still known as in the early 1970's before they switched it to "environmentalism" to give it a more popular appeal as a slogan) was the Hegelian biologist Ernst Haeckel, who reified the abstraction "ecosystems". Leonard Peikoff didn't discuss this aspect in his book The Ominous Parallels on the philosophical influences in Germany leading to the Nazis, but he could have and it would have fit right in with his thesis. See my review of Alston Chase's book In a Dark Wood, and then read the book (and of course The Ominous Parallels if you have not already done so). There is more on the historical background of the German ecology movement in the works of British historian Anna Bramwell.

Ayn Rand's essay "The Anti-Industrial Revolution" in her anthology The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution identified the motives of the then just emerging contemporary viro movement long before anyone else saw it. This anthology was later re-issued and expanded in The Return of the Primitive edited by Peter Schwartz who also added another excellent essay on the viros.