On Mar 12, 2:01 am, "00NBZ" wrote:
Yomin Postelnik

March 11, 2008

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2192

QUOTE: ". let me state clearly that I'm not referring to grassroots
activists or other environmental believers. They've been sold a story
and they sincerely believe that they're doing the right thing. I would
only ask of them that they carefully examine the facts and then form a
position on the issue. But when I say that there is an ulterior agenda,
I'm referring solely to the movement's leaders."

On Election Day 2004, I had the pleasure of discussing the day's events
with a young and forthright Kerry supporter. I mean this with
sincerity.

Too many consider politics a sport of bickering, most recently
exemplified by the two stabbing fights between Obama and Clinton
supporters. Such people deprive themselves of the opportunity to share
ideas and to positively influence others. And while there's precious
little you can do to stop a shrieking, hollering, insane lunatic who's
screaming at you because you disagree over the color of George
Washington's white horse, exchanging viewpoints with a sensible person
who has a different view, even if it's due to them being unaware of
certain facts, can be an enjoyable and rewarding experience, whether it
be a thought provoking one, or simply a teaching one.

The young man in question wanted to discuss any and every issue. He
challenged me to pick any issue and debate whether the candidate I
supported, George W. Bush, had a better position on it than the
candidate of his choice, Senator Kerry. I picked the economy and
terrorism, but before I could get anything out of my mouth he said "let's
start with the environment." (His jumping the gun and rescinding the
offer that I choose the topic was the only negative part of the
conversation. Well, that and his campaign buddies cutting the
conversation short, but those were minor issues and were to be expected.
(After all, he was a Kerry supporter).

My response to him was that President Bush was better on this issue as
well, for two reasons. One, Kerry's proposals called for heavy
regulation and large scale economic interference. They would turn the
public off of anything environmental for good, even needed measures like
reforestation and inner city pollution/smog control. The second reason
was a simpler one. Namely, that detonated nukes are bad for the
environment too. (I know, there is no terrorist threat anywhere. We
don't need to protect ourselves. "Republicans are our only enemies."
But reality begs to differ).

The second reason speaks for itself. However, the first reason needs
further examination as the problem that it points to goes well beyond
John Kerry. It goes to the profound damage that environmentalist groups
are doing and have done to a cause they purport to uphold so
vociferously. Simply put, no one is doing as much damage to the
environment as the environmentalists themselves.

This is no laughing matter. Conservatives and liberals agree on the
need for clean air, healthy living and protection of our natural
resources. Where many part ways is in strict adherence to fact.
Conservatives demand nothing less, and sadly, the environmental movement
has a terrible track record in this regard. In fact, due to the
exaggerations and overbearing practices on the part of environmentalist
leaders, the entire cause of environmentalism is about to be turned into
a laughingstock.

I'm not just referring to activists' always changing/never stopping
thermostat, the one that goes from global warming to global cooling,
back to global warming and so on every thirty years. That, in and of
itself, wouldn't be enough to brand the entire movement with the "Sheep
Activists Who Cried Wolf" label. Not even their latest attempt to
change the public conversation from global "warming," to "something's
going on with the weather," would so disgrace their entire movement,
even though their argument is an effective admission that the warming
theory they've spouted for decades as fact, while branding all who dared
to question as imbeciles or worse, was in error.


OK, lie # 1

But when they silence all critics, refusing to report any of over a
hundred studies challenging their myths, when they refuse to report that
while one Arctic icecap is melting, three or four are solidifying, they
lose credibility.

Lie # 2.

They lose even more when they ignore a prominent
study that shows a global cooling trend that started in 1998

Lie # 3 (the trend is upwards, and 2005 is the hottest year ever)

(see
recording of official global temperatures by the Climate Research Unit
at the University of East Anglia), caused by natural weather cycles.
Their loss is sealed when they promote films like An Inconvenient Truth
as unvarnished and indisputable fact, despite it being the subject of a
British court order mandating a teacher's disclaimer prior to all

Said court found the film scientifically sound.

classroom viewings that points out 9 scientific inaccuracies in the
film.

Said court said to present the IPCC findings.

Moreover, when prominent members of the environmental movement,
such as RFK Jr. compare those who challenge their unsubstantiated
version of environmental pseudo-science to fascists, you know that you're
smelling what's left of the remains of an organically decomposing rat.

It doesn't stop there. To paraphrase one of the two Democratic
candidates for president who are currently ripping each other apart limb
by limb, "we're just getting started." Beyond the lack of real
scientific interest and the vilification of all who dare to examine
facts, beyond the careless rhetoric of David Suzuki, other "scientists"
and their supporters, the environmental movement is doing irreparable
damage to itself and to its cause.

That's what happens when environmentalists mandate the replacement of
Edison's incandescent light bulb with a tiresome contraption that if
broken releases a toxic amount of mercury in your home.

It's not a toxic amount -- it's very minute.

And that's
leaving out the fact that prolonged exposure to fluorescent light bulbs
have in some cases been shown to affect the nervous system

So has exposure to liars like you.

(I'd joke
that this may be the reason for the jeering attitude of the
environmental leaders, except this is no laughing matter). When
environmentalists ban clearing of underbrush in California, leading to
uncontrollable forest fires near densely populated areas,

Lie # 4

when they ban
prudent tree cutting in other states that would serve to prevent forest
fires

Translation -- build roads into national forests and let timber
companies ravage the public land.

and when they stop any oil refinery from being built in North
America for 30 years,

Nobody's proven that. So lie # 5

leading to our continent to be the only one on the
globe not producing more oil since 2002 (save Antarctica), they damage
their movement irreparably. And it's a shame, because clean air, smog
reduction and reforestation are all worthy and needed projects. Yet
they will all fall victim to the fanatics who cried "warmth."

So why do they do this? Why would seemingly passionate and concerned
environmentalists risk alienating the public from their cause? Why can't
they focus on those environmental issues we can all agree upon? The
answer lies in what the real goal of their leaders is, and surprisingly,
or perhaps not, it has little to do with the environment.

Now, before I continue, let me state clearly that I'm not referring to
grassroots activists or other environmental believers. They've been
sold a story and they sincerely believe that they're doing the right
thing. I would only ask of them that they carefully examine the facts
and then form a position on the issue. But when I say that there is an
ulterior agenda, I'm referring solely to the movement's leaders.

The true agenda of environmental leaders can be seen by their actions.
Take Canada for example, a country in which environmentalists have
greater support than almost any other. A leading environmentalist
non-profit hosted a derogatory picture of the country's Conservative
Prime Minister on its website while boosting the Liberal leader on the
same page. And this would make sense, albeit contrary to the mission of
a non-profit, which must stay apolitical, had the Conservatives opposed
environmental legislation. But they didn't. In fact, they enacted
tougher environmental standards than their Liberal predecessors, who
signed the Kyoto treaty but then proceeded to ignore every single
target. Yet for some reason almost all environmental groups in Canada
saw fit to favor the empty platitudes of the Liberals over the concrete
and more far reaching action of the Conservatives.

More telling still is that Canada's environmentalist leaders now admit
that the political leader who did the most for their supposed cause was
Brian Mulroney, the Conservative Prime Minister of the country during
the 1980s and early 90s.

You can reference this?


They say this now, when saying so is
irrelevant. Back when it counted they fought him, backing his less
committed but more liberal opponents. This is all too similar to what
environmentalists did here in the US with Kyoto. When President Clinton
wanted to sign the treaty, the Senate voted it down unanimously.

Lie # 6

Not a
single Democrat voted to uphold it (and it wouldn't be surprising if
this was done partly at Clinton's request, so that he could claim to
support the treaty abroad without actually letting the disaster pass at
home). Yet as soon as President Bush took office, almost all Democrats
jumped ship in an effort to paint him as anti-environment for not
agreeing to the monstrosity.


Perhaps because when he campaigned, he said he'd regulate CO2?

The leaders of the environmental movement routinely spout anti-free
market rhetoric.

Lie # 7

Their most favored piece of proposed legislation is a
global carbon tax or something of that nature with the same results, to
be administered by the UN.

Lie # 8

If they were truly concerned about raising
environmental awareness they would have thought long and hard before
they imposed so many intrusive regulations that are of little or no
actual environmental benefit.

Like you care.

They would have thought twice before they
introduced their planned banning of incandescent light bulbs. If they
cared for the cause, they wouldn't ridicule their opponents or seek to
squelch scientific findings from the public, because they know that the
truth eventually does come out and that their actions would cause a
backlash.

So what group would wreak havoc in an all out attempt to impose their
agenda, even if it risks alienating people from needed environmental
projects? Global redistributionists would. Their agenda is clear and
it has nothing to do with the environment.


Nice to know Republicans can still lie with the best of them (e.g.,
Nixon).

--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
(analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg