31 October 2010

Evil Environmentalist One-World Government Approaches, Says Caruba

Alan Caruba has a terrible column (redundancy ahoy!) about environmentalism, one of his pet bugbears.

If there is one lesson to be learned from and about environmentalists, it is that they are utterly relentless. The ultimate goal is one-world government directed from the United Nations by unelected bureaucrats who are soulless strangers to the truth, to morality, to humanity.
Yes. This is my goal. That is not at all a piece of malicious fearmongering nonsense.

It is where the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) practiced its deceit, regularly documenting a rise in the earth’s average temperature even when a new natural cooling cycle began in 1998.
This is something he has harped on before: the Earth has been cooling on average since 1998.

This also happens to be true, since 1998 was an outstandingly hot year - surpassed only by such years as 2005 and later. It's along the lines of saying that there have been no severe hurricanes in New Orleans since Katrina, so severe hurricanes have dropped to almost nothing. If you take a set of data and limit your scope from the most severe onward, it seems like a drop. But a look at the whole trend...


Caruba's current outrage comes from this:

In June, the delegates from 200 nations gathered in Busan, a South Korean port city, under the banner of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a platform just like the discredited IPCC, but with the goal of denying vast areas of the earth from the development needed to feed six billion people and provide the raw materials vital to the energy required for a modern technological society dependent on electricity and on transportation fuels.

The “reason” for this is the alleged extinction of “nearly 26,000 species across the globe.” The list was compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature that purports to count all the mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish in the world to determine how “imperiled” there.

The very idea evokes incredulity. It is laughable and it is impossible. In the same fashion people were told that the global warmers could predict the temperature of the Earth fifty to a hundred years from now, we are expected to believe that all current species are imperiled. Just as humans were blamed for a non-existent rise in the Earth’s temperature, human are blamed on a massive and fictional extinction.
It's really hard to know what to make fun of in his sentiments here. He is stating fact but with a tone of incredulity, and what do you do with that? It's as if he was saying "Liberals want you to believe that some people put mustard on sandwiches, for some sort of 'zesty tang' or 'sharp spice' - depending on the style." In real life, the solution would be to assume a broad fixed grin and back away slowly, but Caruba lives far away in a huddled dark Den of Misinformation, so what to do? It's not like he's making an actual argument.

Consider that, from the earliest forms of life on earth to the existence of present species all have been engaged daily in the act of killing and eating one another. Ruminants that dine on grasses and other vegetation remain the prey for predator species.
This barely even resembles a valid point. So the fact that animals eat other animals means that we shouldn't care if species go extinct?  Sometimes human beings do more than prey on animals, they wipe them out.  We transcend evolutionary niches in some ways, since we occupy ours by will rather than necessity.  A flounder eats and does not pause to consider if it should be eating sustainably; a flounder eats and propagates to the greatest extent it can, and any surpluses or shortcomings are accounted for by the other species surrounding it in the food chain.  Human beings could - if we wanted - wipe many species just out of existence.  For some it would even be spectacularly easy: koalas would take all of a week to eliminate.  But we choose not to do so, because we have unique capacities both for destruction and restraint.

As an example, it's not like it was some evolutionary adaptation by way of natural selection that led to the near-extinction and subsequent revival of the American bald eagle a century ago: human beings were killing them, both directly and through destruction of their environment.  When they stopped killing them, they returned in strength.

Consider that of all the species that ever existed on Earth, 99% are extinct.
Consider that of all the rocks that ever existed on Earth, 99% are not radioactive. Ergo, radioactivity cannot be significant.

Caruba just doesn't understand how thoughts can work together to make a reasonable argument, it seems.  As the joke has it: "How can Al Gore be opposed to carbon emissions when he himself is made out of carbon?"

Billions of dollars that should go to feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and all manner of humanitarian needs will be siphoned off by this new group of United Nations grifters and charlatans for endless “research” grants and, of course, more international meetings to discuss this horrible new crisis.
Strangely, the only time Alan Caruba ever demonstrates concern for the well-being of the hungry and sick is when money goes to the environment. Money goes to nukes, no problem. Unnecessary missile shields, no problem. But by god if you spend hard-earned American tax dollars to save the bald eagle: outrageous!

No comments:

Post a Comment