|Image: Whalen Politics|
political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalization than with science or ecology. (LINK)Now The American Spectator opines that Green is the New Red.
The environmental movement has been hijacked by those who worship the created and not the creator. They regard industrialization as retrograde, resource extraction as evil, and human beings as net destroyers of the planet. I remember several years ago reading an article by a prominent environmentalist who said Earth’s greatest problem is that mankind has no natural predator. In other words, it is a global curse that human beings sit atop the food chain.After mentioning how environmental groups have rallied against the Keystone XL Pipeline, the writer Stephen Moore continues:
The greens are, in short, against almost all forms of electric power, except those that are prohibitively expensive. They are against oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydro, which together account about 90 percent of our electric power production. They want wind and solar energy, which produce about 3 percent of our electricity and aren’t even green. We’d have to pave over entire states and vast stretches of desert with solar panels to produce enough electricity to power our $18 trillion economy. We’d have to drop windmills—whose blades already Cuisinart more than 83,000 hunting birds, such as falcons and eagles, every year—on every hill, plain, and coastline. The entire wilderness would be industrialized with these inefficient contraptions.Meanwhile, BBC Presenter and Spectator Chairman Andrew Neil appeared on Channel 10's The Bolt Report and after Bolt commented that "you don't exist in Australia...." meaning "our ABC" doesn't have a journalist who would "run a program vigorously contesting the climate science consensus that man made global warming is dangerous" like Neil did on the BBC.
BOLT: Now how difficult was it for you to do that show?
NEIL: I don't think it was difficult at all...... What we did specifically was too zoom in specifically on the pause in temperatures ......as in Australia, most of the Western world particularly in Britain though, energy policy is based on assumptions that temperatures will continue to rise.....for the last 15-17 years they've not been rising to any significant degree so what we've asked the Energy Secretary and the Climate Change Secretary was simply - does this not mean that you should be rethinking your policy?
.....We simply used the "science to show that there was a pause and that that pause could have implications for policy.
Listen at the end where Andrew Neil says that journalists should be sceptics and they should NOT become pally with politicians and think that they are in the same club. They are not!
Well, they should not be but unfortunately most are in the same club as the pollies.