The Greens and I

This is a facebook post from a yeart ago, a sketch of my position which i may elaborate on if I see fit:

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. Naturally I deplore any political party, in my country the 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.

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 cm can be directly linked to the increase in energy production. So they must therefore want to reduce he 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?

I find it very revealing that the founder of Greenpeaces, one of the few Patrick Moore's to achieve prominence - and not to be confiused with the astronomer, left the  movement in disgust  as it had become anti human, regarding man as a plague on the earth.

As to why I hold that Global Warming is not man made and has in fact stopped there is a host of evidence out there on the net for any who cares to google the subject .

I have come to the conclusion that any movement which has become mainstream enough to be noticed by politicians and religious people is already debased. I have sympathy with those who fear pollution. But carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant. And Global Warming is a separate issue fmro pollution. Thus the conservationist message has become mainstream and given its full embrace of the absurdity which is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, it is debased.

Do you want to be taxed into the stone age, to dutifully cut carbon dioxide emissions in the devout superstition that it is a poillutant, only to have a volcanic eruption spew forth more CO2 than man has ever produced in his entire history?

By all means tackle environmental issues, but let us not be sidetracked by pseudoscience and what amounts to bad faith religion which  relies on fallacuious appeals to authority and seeks to defy science itself by silencing dissent rather than rationally refuting it and subjecting itself to skeptical scrutiny.

Those who hold that globsal warming continues and was man made show all the hallmarks of bad faith