Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alexander Cockburn: I am an intellectual blasphemer (red anthropogenic global warming denier!)
spiked-online.com ^ | 25 January 2008 | Alexander Cockburn

Posted on 01/29/2008 11:13:03 PM PST by neverdem



Friday 25 January 2008
I am an intellectual blasphemer
When Alexander Cockburn, author of the forthcoming book A Short History of Fear, dared to question the climate change consensus, he was punished by a tsunami of self-righteous fury. It is time for a free and open ‘battle of ideas’, he says.
Alexander Cockburn

While the world’s climate is on a warming trend, there is zero evidence that the rise in CO2 levels has anthropogenic origins. For daring to say this I have been treated as if I have committed intellectual blasphemy.


Cover illustration by
Jan Bowman

In magazine articles and essays I have described in fairly considerable detail, with input from the scientist Martin Hertzberg, that you can account for the current warming by a number of well-known factors - to do with the elliptical course of the Earth in its relationship to the sun, the axis of the Earth in the current period, and possibly the influence of solar flares. There have been similar warming cycles in the past, such as the medieval warming period, when the warming levels were considerably higher than they are now.

Yet from left to right, the warming that is occurring today is taken as being man-made, and many have made it into the central plank of their political campaigns. For reasons I find very hard to fathom, the environmental left movement has bought very heavily into the fantasy about anthropogenic global warming and the fantasy that humans can prevent or turn back the warming cycle.

This turn to climate catastrophism is tied into the decline of the left, and the decline of the left’s optimistic vision of altering the economic nature of things through a political programme. The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice.

This is a fantasy. In truth, environmental catastrophism will, in fact it already has, play into the hands of sinister-as-always corporate interests. The nuclear industry is benefiting immeasurably from the current catastrophism. Last year, for example, the American nuclear regulatory commission speeded up its process of licensing; there is an imminent wave of nuclear plant building. Many in the nuclear industry see in the story about CO2 causing climate change an opportunity to recover from the adverse publicity of Chernobyl.

More generally, climate catastrophism is leading to a re-emphasis of the powers of the advanced industrial world, through its various trade mechanisms, to penalise Third World countries. For example, the Indians have just produced an extremely cheap car called the Tata Nano, which will enable poorer Indians to get about more easily without having to load their entire family on to a bicycle. Greens have already attacked the car, and it won’t take long for the WTO and the advanced powers to start punishing India with a lot of missionary-style nonsense about its carbon emissions and so on.

The politics of climate change also has potential impacts on farmers. Third World farmers who don’t use seed strains or agricultural procedures that are sanctioned by the international AG corporations and major multilateral institutions and banks controlled by the Western powers will be sabotaged by attacks on their ‘excessive carbon footprint’. The environmental catastrophism peddled by many who claim to be progressive is strengthening the hand of corporate interests over ordinary people.

Here in the West, the so-called ‘war on global warming’ is reminiscent of medieval madness. You can now buy Indulgences to offset your carbon guilt. If you fly, you give an extra 10 quid to British Airways; BA hands it on to some non-profit carbon-offsetting company which sticks the money in its pocket and goes off for lunch. This kind of behaviour is demented.

What is sinister about environmental catastrophism is that it diverts attention from hundreds and hundreds of serious environmental concerns that can be dealt with - starting, perhaps, with the emission of nitrous oxides from power plants. Here, in California, if you drive upstate you can see the pollution all up the Central Valley from Los Angeles, a lot of it caused, ironically, by the sulphuric acid droplets from catalytic converters! The problem is that 20 or 30 years ago, the politicians didn’t want to take on the power companies, so they fixed their sights on penalising motorists who are less able to fight back. Decade after decade, power plants have been given a pass on the emissions from their smoke stacks while measures to force citizens to change their behaviour are brought in.

Emissions from power plants are something that could be dealt with now. You don’t need to have a world programme called ‘Kyoto’ to fix something like that. The Kyoto Accord must be one of the most reactionary political manifestos in the history of the world; it represents a horrible privileging of the advanced industrial powers over developing nations.

The marriage of environmental catastrophism and corporate interests is best captured in the figure of Al Gore. As a politician, he came to public light as a shill for two immense power schemes in the state of Tennessee: the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Oak Ridge Nuclear Laboratory. Gore is not, as he claims, a non-partisan green; he is influenced very much by his background. His arguments, many of which are based on grotesque science and shrill predictions, seem to me to be part of a political and corporate outlook.

In today’s political climate, it has become fairly dangerous for a young scientist or professor to step up and say: ‘This is all nonsense.’ It is increasingly difficult to challenge the global warming consensus, on either a scientific or a political level. Academies can be incredibly cowardly institutions, and if one of their employees was to question the discussion of climate change he or she would be pulled to one side and told: ‘You’re threatening our funding and reputation - do you really want to do that?’ I don’t think we should underestimate the impact that kind of informal pressure can have on people’s willingness to think thoroughly and speak openly.

One way in which critics are silenced is through the accusation that they are ignoring ‘peer-reviewed science’. Yet oftentimes, peer review is a nonsense. As anyone who has ever put his nose inside a university will know, peer review is usually a mode of excluding the unexpected, the unpredictable and the unrespectable, and forming a mutually back-scratching circle. The history of peer review and how it developed is not a pretty sight. Through the process of peer review, of certain papers being nodded through by experts and other papers being given a red cross, the controllers of the major scientific journals can include what they like and exclude what they don’t like. Peer review is frequently a way of controlling debate, even curtailing it. Many people who fall back on peer-reviewed science seem afraid to have out the intellectual argument.

Since I started writing essays challenging the global warming consensus, and seeking to put forward critical alternative arguments, I have felt almost witch-hunted. There has been an hysterical reaction. One individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted. I wrote a series of articles on climate change issues for the Nation, which elicited a level of hysterical outrage and affront that I found to be astounding - and I have a fairly thick skin, having been in the business of making unpopular arguments for many, many years.

There was a shocking intensity to their self-righteous fury, as if I had transgressed a moral as well as an intellectual boundary and committed blasphemy. I sometimes think to myself, ‘Boy, I’m glad I didn’t live in the 1450s’, because I would be out in the main square with a pile of wood around my ankles. I really feel that; it is remarkable how quickly the hysterical reaction takes hold and rains down upon those who question the consensus.

This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring. There is a witch-hunting element in climate catastrophism. That is clear in the use of the word ‘denier’ to label those who question claims about anthropogenic climate change. ‘Climate change denier’ is, of course, meant to evoke the figure of the Holocaust denier. This was contrived to demonise sceptics. The past few years show clearly how mass moral panics and intellectual panics become engendered.

In my forthcoming book, A Short History of Fear, I explore the link between fearmongering and climate catastrophism. For example, alarmism about population explosion is being revisited through the climate issue. Population alarmism goes back as far as Malthus, of course; and in the environmental movement there has always been a very sinister strain of Malthusianism. This is particularly the case in the US where there has never been as great a socialist challenge as there was in Europe. I suspect, however, that even in Europe, what remains of socialism has itself turned into a degraded Malthusian outlook. It seems clear to me that climate catastrophism represents a new form of the politics of fear.

I think people have had enough of peer-reviewed science and experts telling them what they can and cannot think and say about climate change. Climate catastrophism, the impact it is having on people’s lives and on debate, can only really be challenged through rigorous open discussion and through a ‘battle of ideas’, as the conference I spoke at in London last year described it. I hope my book is a salvo in that battle.

Alexander Cockburn was talking to Brendan O’Neill. Cockburn is co-editor of Counterpunch and a syndicated national columnist whose work appears regularly in the Nation, the New York Free Press, and the Los Angeles Times, among others. He spoke at the Battle of Ideas conference in London in October 2007. His new book, A Short History of Fear, will be published in March. The publisher has provided the following taster:

The idea that things are always getting worse, that Armageddon - in one form or another - is just around the corner, has been a common refrain since the very beginnings of Western culture. And, more often than not, the forces allegedly sending us to hell in a proverbial hand basket are shadowy conspiracies whose features are as murky as their nefarious power is supposedly all-encompassing.

Enter renegade journalist Alexander Cockburn to illuminate the darkest corners of our collective cultural unconscious. In his usual, take-no-prisoners-style, he battles an impressive collection of fearmongers and the irrationalities they espouse.

Likening the soul-saving Indulgences sold by the medieval Catholic Church to today’s carbon credits, Cockburn traces his subject through the ages, showing how fear is used to distract us from real problems and real solutions. Skewering doomsters on both the left and right, A Short History of Fear tackles: 9/11 conspiracy theories; the twentieth-century witch craze of ‘satanic abuse’; eugenics; the Kennedy assassination, Pearl Harbor, and other ‘inside jobs’; terrorism; the ‘Great Fear’ of the eighteenth century; today’s eleventh-hour predictions of planetary decline; and much more. Scathing, often hilarious, and always insightful, this is Cockburn at the top of his controversial game.

A Short History of Fear, by Alexander Cockburn is published by AK Press. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK)).

reprinted from: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/4357/



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agw; alexandercockburn; climatechange; globalwarming
The author is one of the few commies who didn't fall for the man-made global warming fear mongering.
1 posted on 01/29/2008 11:13:05 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
You can’t call it “Global Warming” anymore. It’s now called “Climate Change”. This way if it gets warmer it’s mans fault, if it gets colder it’s mans fault. Just go out and buy lots of carbon credits from Algore. But in reality, weather it gets colder or warmer, we all know it’s Bush’s fault because he stole the 2000 election from Algore.
2 posted on 01/29/2008 11:32:57 PM PST by skimask (Support Terrorism......Vote Democratic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Cockburn is redder than a monkey’s ass but he has been calling b.s. on what he terms “neo-Malthusianism” for a long time.


3 posted on 01/29/2008 11:42:45 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skimask

“The nuclear industry is benefiting immeasurably from the current catastrophism.”

If one good thing can come out of the hysteria, this would be it.


4 posted on 01/29/2008 11:44:22 PM PST by eclecticEel (oh well, Hunter 2012 anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: skimask

Right on bro. And a big bump for those of you who are asleep right now.


5 posted on 01/29/2008 11:47:38 PM PST by DISCO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Excellent essay on the lunacy and risk of the anthropogenic global-warming movement. It's worth sending to e-mail friends., etc.

Peer review is frequently a way of controlling debate, even curtailing it. Many people who fall back on peer-reviewed science seem afraid to have out the intellectual argument.

Having been at both ends (reviewer and reviewee) of the peer review process of life science articles, my experiences don't support this statement, however. To date, I have never seen an instance of its use in stifling debate.

6 posted on 01/29/2008 11:53:39 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skimask

Well, of course. The dominant meme has been that the world is getting hotter and will one of these days spike up to some hellish temperature, the poles will melt, and we’ll all die. Alongside it there’s always been the rather opposite scenario that says that man-caused CO2 emissions will lead to a new ice -age. It’s received considerably less traction, and seems to completely contradict the dominant strain of alarmism; yet the global warming crowd doesn’t want to discount it because it has all the necessary elements for any good climate scare: it’s all our fault, and socialism is the only solution.


7 posted on 01/29/2008 11:55:10 PM PST by eclecticEel (oh well, Hunter 2012 anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...

Thanks nd.


8 posted on 01/30/2008 12:17:54 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__________________Profile updated Wednesday, January 16, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“When The Coin In The Coffer Rings, A Soul From Purgatory Springs!” — Dominican Friar Johann Tetzel


9 posted on 01/30/2008 12:50:37 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Second To None!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skimask
But in reality, weather it gets colder or warmer,

Pretty clever, Ski.

Me, being an ordinary, uneducated farm boy from Illinois, would have settled to use the word "whether".

10 posted on 01/30/2008 2:42:31 AM PST by woofer (Earth First! We'll mine the other eight later.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Here in the West, the so-called ‘war on global warming’ is reminiscent of medieval madness. You can now buy Indulgences to offset your carbon guilt. If you fly, you give an extra 10 quid to British Airways; BA hands it on to some non-profit carbon-offsetting company which sticks the money in its pocket and goes off for lunch. This kind of behaviour is demented.

That description seems all too true, except that Mr. Cockburn's summary leaves out that the U.N. also seems determined to tax this silliness along the way.

11 posted on 01/30/2008 2:46:21 AM PST by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
There was a shocking intensity to their self-righteous fury, as if I had transgressed a moral as well as an intellectual boundary and committed blasphemy. I sometimes think to myself, ‘Boy, I’m glad I didn’t live in the 1450s’, because I would be out in the main square with a pile of wood around my ankles...

...in the twentyfirst century, you might find yourself confined to a 'climate-change' re-education camp, perhaps.

12 posted on 01/30/2008 2:53:34 AM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: eclecticEel
the necessary elements for any good climate scare: it’s all our fault, and socialism is the only solution.

Get an inner tube and paddle, Havana or bust. Castro I never knew ya. /sarcasm
13 posted on 01/30/2008 2:56:56 AM PST by carumba (The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made. Groucho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"The author is one of the few commies who didn't fall for the man-made global warming fear mongering."

However he is a hard core Commie who does not believe in free speech for anyone but himself.

The left is beginning to remind me of Russia in the early thirties when purges and murders of the loyal Bolsheviks went on wholesale under Stalin.

14 posted on 01/30/2008 3:42:05 AM PST by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; xcamel; Reform Canada
Interesting that his advertisement (buy my book) attacks the classic boogyman of corporations as much as politicians and enviro’ extremists....
15 posted on 01/30/2008 3:54:16 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; honolulugal; SideoutFred; Ole Okie; ...


FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH


Bit of an oxymoron going on here..
16 posted on 01/30/2008 3:59:54 AM PST by xcamel (Two-hand-voting now in play - One on lever, other holding nose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf; Defendingliberty; WL-law; Normandy

Beam me to Planet Gore !

17 posted on 01/30/2008 4:36:27 AM PST by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Cockburn is to the left of Karl Marx and crazier than Dennis Kucinich.


18 posted on 01/30/2008 4:49:59 AM PST by Beckwith (Dhimmicrats and the liberal media have chosen sides -- Islamofascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Thanks for the ping! I have always been amused to read Cockburn, since he usually comes up with these hilarious ideas, like how Kyoto-like efforts will “hurt” small third-world farmers. (Hello? China and India, anyone? Can any rational person argue that Kyoto will hurt anyone as much as the US?)

But, it is instructive, and illustrative, to have him chronicle his own experience (from the left, no less) of being treated as a heretic for the “sin” of not worshipping the climate-change diety. Note how he defends the catastrophists as corporate dupes, but having the pure motives of seeking social justice, not admitting (aloud) that they are just stone cold stupid. ROFL!

Interesting perspective, however. He fails to note how nuclear power is so bad/objectionable, when Europe, and especially France, are much “greener” than we are and rely much more heavily on nuclear than fossil fuel technology. That must be one of those little “cognitive dissonances”, LOLOL!


19 posted on 01/30/2008 5:06:29 AM PST by alwaysconservative (If it's consensus, it's not science. If it's science, it doesn't require a consensus...Crichton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The author is one of the few commies who didn't fall for the man-made global warming fear mongering.

Another incisive and funny! explanation of ludicrous celebrity fear-mongering, academic grant-seeking and corporate exploitation of environmental fears is the 2004 book State of Fear by Michael Crichton, Harvard-educated doctor and author of many blockbusters, including Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain, and the TV show "ER."

Wikipedia says, "Crichton warns both sides of the global warming debate against the politicization of science. He provides an example of the disastrous combination of pseudo-science and good intentions, in the early 20th-century idea of eugenics. He finishes by endorsing the management of wilderness and the continuation of research into all aspects of the Earth's environment." [emphases mine.]

20 posted on 01/30/2008 6:21:56 AM PST by Albion Wilde ("How [Obama] stumbled onto Walter Mondale's political philosophy is beyond me." —Tony Blankley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

pingferlater


21 posted on 01/30/2008 6:23:57 AM PST by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

Just looked up “Malthusianism” -

at its base, this belief is actually coming true - overpopulation amongst the DEPENDENT POOR.

And there’s a political party that stakes its very existence on the growth of this segment of society.


22 posted on 01/30/2008 6:25:18 AM PST by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
Well there seems to be a discrepancy on the delegate count depending on where you look.

Real Clear Politics has the counts that you mention:

McCain Romney Huckabee
93 (less 57 from FL = 36 as of day before yesterday) 67 40

But CNN has the following:

McCain Romney Huckabee
95 (less 57 from FL = 38 as of day before yesterday) 67 26

Not sure why there would be a difference.

23 posted on 01/30/2008 6:43:58 AM PST by carolinablonde (Proud member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good read, thanks.


24 posted on 01/30/2008 6:51:38 AM PST by READINABLUESTATE ("life is dangerous")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eclecticEel; neverdem; Landru
The start of the AGW scare was done in concert with the nuclear industry, and with the encouragement & financial aid of M. Thather's administration.
A well written essay on the subject, here:

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

“Global Warming: How It All Began”


25 posted on 01/30/2008 7:53:11 AM PST by FBD (My carbon footprint is bigger then yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

bttt


26 posted on 01/30/2008 8:05:36 AM PST by isaiah55version11_0 (For His Glory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

And he didn’t fall for the Clintons either, he was pushed.


27 posted on 01/30/2008 8:14:00 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

Talk to Fred Singer about his battles with Science to even get a letter-to-the-editor published and then get back to me.


28 posted on 01/30/2008 8:15:56 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Here in the West, the so-called ‘war on global warming’ is reminiscent of medieval madness. You can now buy Indulgences to offset your carbon guilt. If you fly, you give an extra 10 quid to British Airways; BA hands it on to some non-profit carbon-offsetting company which sticks the money in its pocket and goes off for lunch. This kind of behaviour is demented.

Funny stuff. Hippies are so stupid.

29 posted on 01/30/2008 8:17:09 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FBD

In the military, they just make you paint everything that doesn’t move.


30 posted on 01/30/2008 8:19:48 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The nuclear industry is benefiting immeasurably from the current catastrophism. Last year, for example, the American nuclear regulatory commission speeded up its process of licensing; there is an imminent wave of nuclear plant building. Many in the nuclear industry see in the story about CO2 causing climate change an opportunity to recover from the adverse publicity of Chernobyl.

BWWWWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Now, we will build those dams and kill the snail darter!!!!

BWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Frankly, I always thought it was the coal people behind Jackson Browne, Bruce Springsteen and Jane Fonda.

31 posted on 01/30/2008 8:23:05 AM PST by Tribune7 (How is inflicting pain and death on an innocent, helpless human being for profit, moral?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Intimidation first — vandalized home and autos, small loud groups of unknown people suddenly popping up shouting things while out shopping etc...


32 posted on 01/30/2008 8:24:36 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__________________Profile updated Wednesday, January 16, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Peer review is a tool. We know how it should be used, but how it is actually used may be something different.

YMMV.

33 posted on 01/30/2008 8:33:41 AM PST by thulldud (“America is a mean country and South Carolina is a meaner state,” ( Lonnie Randolph, NAACP))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Read soon. Amazing stuff.


34 posted on 01/30/2008 9:13:37 AM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Global warming is to Revelations as the theory of evolution is to Genesis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Talk to Fred Singer about his battles with Science to even get a letter-to-the-editor published and then get back to me.

A letter to the editor is not a peer-reviewed scientific report.

35 posted on 01/30/2008 9:15:48 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: skimask

About 17 years ago, I was in on a one hour whirlwind tour of Oxford University. I stopped in a book store that had some Oxford U tee shirts for sale, and I listened in on a conversation between two young long-haired, wire rimmed spectacled, work shirt clad, Marxists.

One said, “After the revolution, the first thing we should do is kill all the environmentalists.”

I had just that morning read an article in the Telegraph about Hitler’s environmentalism. I pointed out to said young Marxists that Hitler was an environmentalist. It pleased them to hear that.

What I should have said, “Why wait? Kill them now.”


36 posted on 01/30/2008 9:26:14 AM PST by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Huh. Welcome, Alexander Cockburn, to your fascist Democrat world.


37 posted on 01/30/2008 9:27:54 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
at its base, this belief is actually coming true - overpopulation amongst the DEPENDENT POOR.

Malthus said that increased population inevitably leads to shortages of food and starvation because certain natural resources (e.g. arable land) are finite and scarce and unreplaceable. The "environmental movement" adopts this "scarcity leads to disaster" mentality to all resources, claiming we are necessarily running out of land, soil, water, energy resources, "biodiversity", clean air, everything. Alex Cockburn, Julian Simon, and myself believe this is bunk and that man's intelligence and creativity can overcome any and all scarcity through increased end-use efficiency and substitution. The difference among us is that Julian Simon and I believe that it is through individual freedom and free enterprise that scarcities will be overcome and Cockburn foolishly and stubbornly clings to vague imaginings of enlightened collectivism to get the job done.

38 posted on 01/30/2008 9:34:19 AM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: woofer

Unfortunately, spell check doesn’t catch grammar mistakes.


39 posted on 01/30/2008 10:07:11 AM PST by skimask (Support Terrorism......Vote Democratic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FBD
"The start of the AGW scare was done in concert with the nuclear industry, and with the encouragement & financial aid of M. Thather's administration."

Indeed it did.
A "vehicle" for the newly out-of-work communists.
The mother of all unintended consequences, I'd say.

What I find even crazier is how the hard data demonstrates as CO2 increased, the planet cooled proportionately.

Of course it just makes sense these days it's pitched the exact opposite.

...& swallowed hook, line *&* sinker.

40 posted on 01/30/2008 10:08:50 AM PST by Landru (Reality hits the faithful the hardest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FBD

Somehow, I doubt the mental stability of anyone who could produce a flow-chart that disorganized.


41 posted on 01/30/2008 8:43:57 PM PST by eclecticEel (oh well, Hunter 2012 anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
UN: climate change may cost $20 trillion (laying the groundwork for Kyoto 2, one Barf at a time)

John McCain is an Outright Liar! (Time for some Real Straight Talk)

Sensor Deprivation Statism gone mad.

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

42 posted on 01/30/2008 10:20:38 PM PST by neverdem (I have to hope for a brokered GOP Convention. It can't get any worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
...and the fantasy that humans can prevent or turn back the warming cycle.

This is the most dangerous of ideas in the whole battle.
Even if it is proved beyond doubt that the rise in global temperatures is anthropogenic, the idea that we can effect any change whatsoever in our climate by "Going Green" is indeed a fantasy of cosmic proportions.

43 posted on 01/30/2008 10:25:16 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Bureaucracy is a parasite that preys on Free Thought and suffocates Free Spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

“To date, I have never seen an instance of its use in stifling debate.”

Apparently peer review is not the gold standard it’s assumed to be — at least not in certain disciplines.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1578777/posts


44 posted on 01/31/2008 4:13:26 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: eclecticEel

If you read the article it would make more sense.

-the same claim is made in the documentary “Great Global Warming Swindle”, complete with sources from the British govt.

http://store.demanddebate.com/great-global-warming-swindle-dvd.html


45 posted on 01/31/2008 4:23:12 AM PST by FBD (My carbon footprint is bigger then yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


46 posted on 01/31/2008 10:03:05 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping.


47 posted on 01/31/2008 8:39:02 PM PST by GOPJ (Robert Byrd, George Wallace,“Bull” Connor- all Democrat Racists - Clintoons added to list. 230FMJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
While the world’s climate is on a warming trend, there is zero evidence that the rise in CO2 levels has anthropogenic origins. For daring to say this I have been treated as if I have committed intellectual blasphemy.

It's almost always the left that's carrying pitchforks and torches...

48 posted on 01/31/2008 8:41:45 PM PST by GOPJ (Robert Byrd, George Wallace,“Bull” Connor- all Democrat Racists - Clintoons added to list. 230FMJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: skimask
Unfortunately, spell check doesn’t catch grammar mistakes.

Really? Eye find spell Czech two bee very effective, butt their are sum who disagree.

49 posted on 02/01/2008 1:50:03 AM PST by Entrepreneur (The environmental movement is filled with watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson