It’s just a guess, but I’d say @JamesDelingpole doesn’t like Green NGOs and their activists

June 25, 2014

Don’t know where I get that idea from:

By rights these activists ought to be treated with tremendous suspicion. As we know, for example, from Greenpeace’s appalling campaigning track record – such as its mendacious smearing of Shell over Brent Spar, and its dishonest representations about the Greenland ice shelf – these environmental groups comprise hard-left political activists entirely unsuited to dispensing unbiased policy advice. Yet, time and again, these misanthropic, Gaia-worshipping Luddites with their Mickey Mouse degrees in sustainability, whale management and polar bear empathy studies and their half-baked, junk-science-fuelled opinions on how to save the world from capitalism and the non-existent problem of “climate change”, are granted seats at the top table in every government environmental decision-making process.

We didn’t vote for these soap-dodging, bunny-hugging loons yet, increasingly, they are ruling all our lives. It’s time we followed India’s example and told them exactly where they can stick their green agenda.

He shouldn’t be so shy with his opinions. It makes it hard to tell where he stands.

PS: I largely agree with him.

Advertisements

The horrifying price we pay for not signing the Kyoto treaty

January 3, 2012

Curse that George W. Bush (and Bill Clinton) and those global-warming skeptics! Thanks to their betrayal of Mother Gaea, the planet is warming climate is changing and we are faced with the inevitable price of their folly:

Mutant sharks!!! (1)

No, really:

Scientists said on Tuesday that they had discovered the world’s first hybrid sharks in Australian waters, a potential sign the predators were adapting to cope with climate change.

The mating of the local Australian black-tip shark with its global counterpart, the common black-tip, was an unprecedented discovery with implications for the entire shark world, said lead researcher Jess Morgan.

“It’s very surprising because no one’s ever seen shark hybrids before, this is not a common occurrence by any stretch of the imagination,” Morgan, from the University of Queensland, told AFP.

“This is evolution in action.”

Here we go again with more leading propaganda for the climate-alarmist cause: “potential,” a weasel word meant to make us think that something significant may be happening, and that it could be linked to dangerous man-caused climate change, so we need to do something NOW! to stop it. That “something” inevitably requiring economy and liberty-killing government regulation and taxation and massive transnational bureaucracy.

The quoted section is also misleading because it relies on a fallacy: if we’ve never seen something before, it must never have happened before, leaving us with the impression that it must be significant — in this case, for the alarmist cause.

It’s far more likely, in my non-scientific educated layman’s opinion, that natural cycles of climate change lead one shark into the territory of another, closely related species and, when the two met and being in the mood for love, Nature took her course. I’d bet it’s happened countless times before in the history of life on Earth. It may even have been an accident, such as an escape from a fishing net. While the incident itself may be biologically significant and worthy of investigation on its own, to broadly hint that it’s likely the result of man-caused climate change while presenting no evidence of linkage is just Green propaganda, with journalist Amy Coopes as either the propagandist or the willing tool.

Via James Delingpole, whose column is a hilarious must-read.

Footnote:
(1) Anyone who’s familiar with the Arduin roleplaying game knows what’s coming: exploding hydrogen-filled Air Sharks! (Hey, if the alarmists can make lousy projections based on no facts or false facts, so can I.)

UPDATE: More at Pirate’s Cove.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The view from Britain: comparing two constitutions, and our coming choice

September 5, 2011

While writing about the frightening proposal by former German Chancellor (1) Gerhard Schroeder for a fully-formed “United States of Europe,” the Telegraph’s James Delingpole made an astute observation about the differences between the United States Constitution and the European Union’s governing document:

In the US, they have a Constitution (one which the current administration would prefer to ignore, but still) which explicitly guarantees the constituent states in the Union the right to forge their own destiny. They can set their own local tax rates, their own speed limits, their position on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana consumption, and so on. This Constitution is what has made America great and Americans so free: and the two things are very much connected. When, for example, one state falls prey to rampant big government (eg California), there will always be other states offering a different sociopolitical model (eg Texas) – thus enabling free citizens of the Republic to vote with their feet. They will gravitate towards the model which best serves their needs – thus endorsing it – while fleeing the model they find less attractive, thus discrediting it. In this way bad political ideas cannot so easily take root in the US. Not at least so long as the Constitution is respected.

In the European Union, however, the Constitution serves exactly the opposite purpose. It is designed to give the constituent states as little freedom as possible to decide their own destinies; all decisions are deferred upwards to the controlling central authority; and when member states make the “wrong” decision, the EU superpower simply goes ahead and does what it wants regardless.

To give an example of this top-down control, the Library of the House of Commons in the UK estimates that fully half of Britain’s laws come, not from the democratically elected Parliament in London, but as directives handed down by the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels. Schroeder’s proposal, rather than creating a “more perfect union,” would instead cement into place a dictatorship of the nomenklatura.

One can’t help but notice also, and as Delingpole obliquely does above, that the Obama administration would very much like to institute that same Continental Model here — witness the actions of the EPA, the NLRB, and the FCC, just to name a few.

Keep that in mind come November, 2012. We won’t just be choosing a president, but the character of our union.

Footnote:

(1) And also a Putin crony. That should tell us all we need to know.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


You know you’re doing it right when…

April 18, 2010

The global-warming cultists have to recruit trolls to try to discredit you and your positions.

Someday I hope to attract trolls of my own. All the cool blogs have them.


Virtuous Greens more likely to lie, cheat, and steal

March 16, 2010

Maybe I should have written “sanctimonious” rather than “virtuous,” but… whatever. A study reported in the UK’s Guardian newspaper shows that our moral superiors in the “save the Earth” movement are also more likely to steal and then lie about it:

When Al Gore was caught running up huge energy bills at home at the same time as lecturing on the need to save electricity, it turns out that he was only reverting to “green” type.

According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the “licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour”, otherwise known as “moral balancing” or “compensatory ethics”.

Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the “halo of green consumerism” are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. “Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours,” they write.

The pair found that those in their study who bought green products appeared less willing to share with others a set amount of money than those who bought conventional products. When the green consumers were given the chance to boost their money by cheating on a computer game and then given the opportunity to lie about it – in other words, steal – they did, while the conventional consumers did not. Later, in an honour system in which participants were asked to take money from an envelope to pay themselves their spoils, the greens were six times more likely to steal than the conventionals.

Why am I not surprised?  Waiting

(via the always thoughtful and moderate James Delingpole)