I used to be mildly sympathetic to the ideas of the Green party. But no longer.
I researched Global Warming, now called Climate Change in tacit acknowledgement that the climate has stopped warming for if it were still warming the term global warming would still suffice. I came to the conclusion that climate operates according to its own immutable laws and human activity is not connected to it in any significant way.
Indeed, for example, in the Medieval Warm period, which was warmer than today, CO2 levels were much lower. In fact you may not have heard of this period of history as the warmists have committed the contemptible fraud of denying it ever happened. But I know it is real from my reading of history not from gazing at tree ring proxies. Why, I might add, would they have to propound this lie, for a lie it is, if they were speaking the truth? For that alone I might reject their claims as being based on lies. But the fact of the Medieval Warm Period destroys the connection on which the hysteria, and it is hysteria, is based.
Science is a human activity and as such is not immune form politics and fashion. Indeed I totally deplore the fact that too many people get their convictions on this matter from their politics and not from the science, with, in general, leftists believing in Global Warming and rightists denying it.
I am an exception, and there are a few of us. I am a life long leftist who rejects the claim of man made global warming because of the science and evidence, both historical and empirical, and not from my politics or any vague sense of leftist guilt
Given that global warming has ceased and was not caused by men, and given that the science saying so is valid despite the cries of those opposed to it, given all these things I have lost all respect for the so called Greens. Green does not mean a party that respects human life or people because after all the Nazis were green. They were even anti smoking long before anyone else . Green is an agrarian fantasy which conveniently overlooks the lives of those who lived in pre industrial societies which were nasty, brutal and short. Indeed the earth can only support the population it now has because of industrial and post industrial technology. This Malthus was dimly aware of when he predicted doom without knowing what industry and science could do. Agrarians must necessarily want to reduce the population by 90 percent, back to a level that is "sustainable" in agrarian terms.
So, as one critic said, they are melons: green on the outside red on the inside, or they are green as they are too yellow to call themselves red.
And now to what moved me to post this. In my own country the Labour Party, which I have supported with carrying degrees of commitment all my life, has made an alliance with the NZ Green Party. I deplore the NZ Labour party wanting to get into bed with such dangerous dreamers just as I deplore the self righteousness of the Green saying that those who care for the environment must therefore green. I deplore the big polluters as much as they do but their "solution " is ham fisted
Why do I take them to be genocidal as well as fantasists? The technologies touted by them are inefficient. They deplore fracking and despise nuclear technology, which is, like it or not the only way to produce cheap energy in abundance. And note: the increase in lifespan noted over the last two centuries can be directly linked to the increase in energy production. So they must therefore, if at all consistent or well thought out - though to be fair they probably are neither of these things- want to reduce the population by a great amount. Think about it. Do you want to return to the medieval period. a peasant in a mud hut dead before the age of 40 like our ancestors who lived green?
Diverting resources from real need to solve a bogus problem will itself kill people, just as I hear that the price of food has skyrocketed as farmers are rushing to grow bio fuels.
Sense must prevail otherwise seeking to avoid an imaginary disaster may produce a real disaster albeit it of as different kind.
I researched Global Warming, now called Climate Change in tacit acknowledgement that the climate has stopped warming for if it were still warming the term global warming would still suffice. I came to the conclusion that climate operates according to its own immutable laws and human activity is not connected to it in any significant way.
Indeed, for example, in the Medieval Warm period, which was warmer than today, CO2 levels were much lower. In fact you may not have heard of this period of history as the warmists have committed the contemptible fraud of denying it ever happened. But I know it is real from my reading of history not from gazing at tree ring proxies. Why, I might add, would they have to propound this lie, for a lie it is, if they were speaking the truth? For that alone I might reject their claims as being based on lies. But the fact of the Medieval Warm Period destroys the connection on which the hysteria, and it is hysteria, is based.
Science is a human activity and as such is not immune form politics and fashion. Indeed I totally deplore the fact that too many people get their convictions on this matter from their politics and not from the science, with, in general, leftists believing in Global Warming and rightists denying it.
I am an exception, and there are a few of us. I am a life long leftist who rejects the claim of man made global warming because of the science and evidence, both historical and empirical, and not from my politics or any vague sense of leftist guilt
Given that global warming has ceased and was not caused by men, and given that the science saying so is valid despite the cries of those opposed to it, given all these things I have lost all respect for the so called Greens. Green does not mean a party that respects human life or people because after all the Nazis were green. They were even anti smoking long before anyone else . Green is an agrarian fantasy which conveniently overlooks the lives of those who lived in pre industrial societies which were nasty, brutal and short. Indeed the earth can only support the population it now has because of industrial and post industrial technology. This Malthus was dimly aware of when he predicted doom without knowing what industry and science could do. Agrarians must necessarily want to reduce the population by 90 percent, back to a level that is "sustainable" in agrarian terms.
So, as one critic said, they are melons: green on the outside red on the inside, or they are green as they are too yellow to call themselves red.
And now to what moved me to post this. In my own country the Labour Party, which I have supported with carrying degrees of commitment all my life, has made an alliance with the NZ Green Party. I deplore the NZ Labour party wanting to get into bed with such dangerous dreamers just as I deplore the self righteousness of the Green saying that those who care for the environment must therefore green. I deplore the big polluters as much as they do but their "solution " is ham fisted
Why do I take them to be genocidal as well as fantasists? The technologies touted by them are inefficient. They deplore fracking and despise nuclear technology, which is, like it or not the only way to produce cheap energy in abundance. And note: the increase in lifespan noted over the last two centuries can be directly linked to the increase in energy production. So they must therefore, if at all consistent or well thought out - though to be fair they probably are neither of these things- want to reduce the population by a great amount. Think about it. Do you want to return to the medieval period. a peasant in a mud hut dead before the age of 40 like our ancestors who lived green?
Diverting resources from real need to solve a bogus problem will itself kill people, just as I hear that the price of food has skyrocketed as farmers are rushing to grow bio fuels.
Sense must prevail otherwise seeking to avoid an imaginary disaster may produce a real disaster albeit it of as different kind.
