Radical Environmentalism & The Green Religion

What happened at the 2010 Copenhagen Climate Summit? Practically nothing. Copenhagen had long been hyped as the conference where a new set of stringent, binding, verifiable, and internationally enforceable greenhouse gas emissions targets were to be agreed upon for the decades ahead. The targets in the existing 1997 Kyoto Protocol–generally a 5 percent reduction below 1990 emissions levels for developed countries–are scheduled to expire in 2012. And in any event, global warming activists considered the Kyoto Protocol too weak to save the planet.
Ben Lieberman, “The Copenhagen Conference: A Setback for Bad Climate Policy in 2010,” Special Report, The Heritage Foundation, Jan. 2010.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was forced to disavow its claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 and acknowledge that it had no scientific basis.
Brett Schaeffer and Baker Spring, “National Security Goes Green,” National Review, Feb. 11, 2010.

The Times Online reported that Prof. Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate-impacts team, could find nothing in the IPCC report to support its claim that ”global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change.” The QDR followed the IPCC on this error, too, claiming that climate change will impact food security.
Brett Schaeffer and Baker Spring, “National Security Goes Green,” National Review, Feb. 11, 2010.

More than 31,000 scientists signed a petition rejecting the theory of human-caused global warming. Numerous experts now claim the Earth is cooling.

Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere. To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data. In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
“No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds,” Science Daily, Dec. 31, 2009; The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters


“One of the elephants in the room here in Copenhagen has been Climategate – the release of emails and other documents evidencing gross misconduct amongst some of the key scientists involved in the main United Nations scientific report that was to be relied upon here. The fact that temperatures have been flat for over a decade only adds to the justifiably growing public skepticism whether global warming really is a crisis.”
“Live at Copenhagen: Try Again in 2010 – The Final Slogan from Copenhagen?” The Heritage Foundation, Dec. 18, 2009

“It is hard to do any more wrong by the American people than cap and trade. Whether done by domestic legislation or international treaty, significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions (like the 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 in the House Waxman Markey bill which the Obama administration had hoped to match at Copenhagen or get done at a subsequent UN global warming treaty conference) would raise gasoline prices by 58 percent by 2035, electric rates by 90 percent, impose nearly $3,000 in total annual costs on a household of 4, and destroy over one million jobs.”
Steven Groves and Ben Lieberman, “How to Make a Bad Climate Deal Worse,” The Heritage Foundation, Dec. 17, 2009

“But Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is certainly trying to make a bad deal worse by pledging America’s support for a massive foreign aid package in the name of helping developing nations address global warming. … By making such pledges in Denmark, the Obama administration is making the same mistake Bill Clinton and Al Gore did in 1997 – promising abroad what it can’t deliver at home. Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol, the existing global warming treaty whose expiring provisions were supposed to be extended at Copenhagen, knowing full well that the Senate would never ratify it. Now, this administration is making foreign aid promises in Copenhagen that it can’t deliver in Washington. It is hard to imagine the Congress signing off on such a massive aid package, especially given the still lingering recession and growing public doubts about global warming.”
Steven Groves and Ben Lieberman, “How to Make a Bad Climate Deal Worse,” The Heritage Foundation, Dec. 17, 2009

Professor Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, speaking of claims of “global warming”

“The assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.”
Dr. Edward Wegman, professor at the center for Computational Statistics, George Mason University, and chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied Theoretical Statistics

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and one-sided argument.”
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, and economist, commenting on the IPCC’s biases toward “global warming”

“After carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story told to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th century global warming.”
Dr. Nit Shariv, astrophysicist and associate professor at Hebrew University

“All four agencies that track the Earth’s temperature — the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc. in California — report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930.”
Phil Chapman, geophysicist, astronautical engineer, and NASA astronaut

“Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the ‘hockey stick’ were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves ‘the Hockey Team,’ and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.”
Christopher Booker, “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation,” London Telegraph, Nov. 28, 2009.

“There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.”
Christopher Booker, “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation,” London Telegraph, Nov. 28, 2009.

“They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence. But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.”
Christopher Booker, “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation,” London Telegraph, Nov. 28, 2009.

“The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.”
Christopher Booker, “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation,” London Telegraph, Nov. 28, 2009.

“A group called GenderCC (Women for Climate Justice) rejects using distractions like “numbers” and “target dates” to track and fight climate change, and doesn’t appear very interested in the environment itself. Instead, it hopes to implement “gender-mainstreaming” and ensure that the U.N. guarantees the fullest participation of “feminist scientists” at every level.”
Joseph Abrams, “Copenhagen ‘Cicus’ Turning into Feel-Good Jamboree, Critics Say,” Fox News, Dec. 8, 2009.

10 thoughts on “Radical Environmentalism & The Green Religion

  1. Jack Johnson

    Radical Environmentalism eh? I thought this article would be about Earth First! setting Hummers on fire. So fear of man made Climate Change is radical now? Just who really is radical? Being Conservative is one thing, but to some, Capitalism has become such an infallible religion that they’d even risk killing the planet with CO2 in the atmosphere and acid in the oceans before they’d put the brakes on growth and development. That seems very radical to me and I see the those in opposition to them both Conservative and Liberal as the cool heads here . I am still looking for INDEPENDENT scientifc data refuting man made climate change. Every report like that I’ve seen winds up being funded by the fossil fuel industry and/or right-wing (as opposed to Conservative) corporate-funded think tanks blindly defending unregulated capitalism at all costs (see quotes above). Let’s man up and stop trying to use Climategate or science funded by Exxon to avoid exposing cracks in our Capitalist foundation. Cracks can be repaired. Once too far gone, the planet cannot.

  2. arizona today

    2 points, Jack Johnson:

    1. It’s pretty grandiose to think man can destroy this immense planet.
    2. No one has the responsibility to disprove a false negative. The onus remains on those who believe in manmade climate change to prove it’s true. So far, they have failed miserably. Those who claim there is manmade climate change are NOT neutral scientists practicing honest scientific methods. They have an agenda to promote, whether the data support them or not. Careers, like Al Gore’s, depend on soaking up big donations to support extravagant lifestyles. So let’s not pretend the warming alarmists are altrusitic.

  3. Jack Johnson

    Thanks very much for the thoughtful response. Sounds like you don’t believe man has the ability to make his own home uninhabitable, while I look at the mass extinctions of plant and animal species, destruction of ecosystems and the depletion of topsoil and so many nonrenewable resources just since the beginning of the industrial revolution and think we are well on our way to doing just that. This difference illustrates what is probably a source of frustration for all about the climate change debate and why nations need to stop discussion of solutions and settle the debate on the problem first. We can’t meaningfully debate solutions to a problem when the one side doesn’t believe a problem exists because to that side ANY solution is naturally just negative. This disconnect has sabotaged every climate change summit to date. The side that is convinced action must be taken now on behalf of future generations, naturally thinks that resisting action due to economic cost is insane. Kind of like your house is on fire but you resist turning the hose on it because you don’t want your water bill to go up. Thus many climate activists think they are up against insanely greedy people who will let their house burn down to save money on water which of course is not true. On the other hand, insinuations about profit motive as the basis for the climate action movement sounds pretty desparate. Climate activism is a largely grass-roots movement being opposed by a massively wealthy industry with a terrible track record of environmental stewardship. To try to tie climate action to greed just illustrates the inability of some Conservatives to accept the fact that people will act for the good of all without selfish profit in mind. This viewpoint I think is why many on the right tend to fear and try to disparage the character of good people involved in so many well-meaning if ineffective, activist movements. Is such a poor outlook on humankind the basis of our belief in the superiority of capitalism? Not mine! Thanks.

    1. arizona today

      House on fire? That’s sensationalisitc, overly-alarmist and chicken little crying the sky is falling — only to destroy the economy and reduce us to an agrarian “you can’t do this” society.

      There is more tree cover in the U.S. than 250 years ago. I recently flew cross-country and was amazed at all the tree cover and greenery.

      There are more moose in the lower 48 than 2,000 years ago. Mountain lions and grizzly bears have made huge increases in the last 30 years.

      There is more land protected as national parks and preserves now than at any time in U.S. history.

      It takes delusions of grandeur to think man can destroy all the air, water and land; it’s a huge planet.

      In fact, we are hardly a dying planet.

      If honest scientists could prove there’s a serious problem, we would take appropriate actions. The Kyoto Protocol is totally out of line with the health of the earth.

      Al Gore is not playing with a full deck. Even his wife knew he’was a few cards short of a full deck. The NSF and Democrats beholden to environmentalist wacko campaign cash are the problem, not any mythology about “global warming.” Let’s get real.

      1. Jack Johnson

        In regard to the repopulation of the species and forests you cite, yes what a tragedy. Despite the best efforts of our beloved mining, ranching, foresting and hunting industry hero lobbyists to oppose them every step of the way, those freedom-hating wacko liberal radical environmentalists do get protective legislation pushed through occasionally. I know, it’s just a shame. We need golf courses, not forests, and bears belong in trophy rooms or zoos where God meant them to be. Darn those radical environmentalists…..

  4. arizona today

    So you don’t believe in the U.S.F.S. mission to create multiple uses of the great resources God has given us. Most do.

    1. Jack Johnson

      Mix sounds good but the USFS is not a conservation group. The mix is more logging vs mining. The USFS is beholden to politicians and politicians are beholden to special interests with the money to fund campaigns and lobbying. Weyerhauser has a lot more money than the Sierra Club. With the passing of the Citizens United bill, those logging and mining interests can dump all the money they want to elect or remove those from office they want, anonymously. Under the USFS “mix”, 96% of our old growth forests have been logged and environmental groups are fighting tooth and nail to save the 4% that is left. I lived in the Pacific Northwest for years and to walk through a replanted forest is sad. No giant trees, no moss carpet for ground cover to resist erosion and drought, no diverse plants to nourish and protect roots, no complex ecosystem where all of inhabitants serve a function to keep it healthy. About the only animals you see are squirrels and crows. In the old days we didn’t know any better and thought the earth was too big to fail. It’s easy to become informed- why not take that approach before you call people wackos and alarmists? Find out how many plant and animal species have gone extinct due to industrialization (will be near 50% within our lifetimes). What percentage of our large fish populations are gone (90% since 1950). How much topsoil has disappeared due to development and harmful agriculture techniques (US loses 200 billion tons per year). It seems to me that God’s creation is being de-created by greed and shortsightedness. If ee fail to act to reverse these trends, I can’t imagine that He or our grandkids will be pleased with us.

  5. arizona today

    The USFS has 40 percent of its budget tied up in litigation because of radical enviro extremists whose assembly lines fire off lawsuits at the mere mention of cleaning forest floors of downed timber. It’s this forest floor fuel that propelled the Rodeo-Chediski and other fires out of control and put thousands of lives at risk and burned hundreds of homes.

    It’s easy to put on goggles and look at this issue through tunnel vision and point fingers where blame is not due.

    I’ve visited the Northwest many times and enjoyed hiking and exploring hundreds and hundreds of square miles of thick, lush forest. Your claim is a wee bit o’the weak. You folks worship “old growth” trees. You have lost sight of the forest.

  6. arizona today

    Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes

    “Let’s start keeping track of them…let’s make them pay”

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Thursday, April 19, 2012

    Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.

    Comparing climate change skeptics to residents in Tennessee who refused to pay a $75 fee, resulting in firemen sitting back and watching their houses burn down, Zwick rants that anyone who actively questions global warming propaganda should face the same treatment.

    “We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices,” writes Zwick, adding, “They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”

    As we have profusely documented, as polls show that fewer and fewer Americans are convinced by the pseudo-science behind man-made global warming, promulgated as it is by control freaks like Zwick who care more about money and power than they do the environment, AGW adherents are becoming increasingly authoritarian in their pronouncements.

    Even as the science itself disproves their theories – Arctic ice is thickening, polar bears and penguins are thriving, Himalayan glaciers are growing – climate change alarmists are only becoming more aggressive in their attacks against anyone who dares question the global warming mantra.

    Earlier month we highlighted Professor Kari Norgaard’s call for climate skeptics to be likened to racists and ‘treated’ for having a mental disorder. In a letter to Barack Obama, Norgaard also called on the President to ignore the will of the people and suspend democracy in order to enforce draconian ecological mandates.

    But that’s by no means represents the extreme edge of eco-fascist sentiment that has been expressed in recent years.

    In 2010, UK government-backed global warming alarmist group 10:10 produced an infomercial in which children who refused to lower their carbon emissions were slaughtered in an orgy of blood and guts. After a massive backlash, the organization was forced to remove the video from their website and issue an apology.

    The same year, ‘Gaia hypothesis’ creator James Lovelock asserted that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet because people were too stupid to be allowed to steer their own destinies.

    In 2006, an environmental magazine to which Al Gore and Bill Moyers had both granted interviews advocated that climate skeptics who are part of the “denial industry” be arrested and made to face Nuremberg-style war crimes trials.

    ClimateDepot.com’s Mark Morano is encouraging AGW skeptics to politely inform Steve Zwick ( info@ecosystemmarketplace.com) that calling for people who express a difference of opinion to be tracked and have their houses burned down is not a rational argument for the legitimacy of man-made global warming science.

    Indeed, it’s the argument of a demented idiot who’s obviously in the throws of a childish tantrum over the fact that Americans are rejecting the global government/carbon tax agenda for which man-made global warming is a front in greater numbers than ever before.

Leave a Reply