Global warming believer? Then you're a "green" - Christopher Horner's gonna getcha!
I was browsing Ecorazzi, as I often do, and I stumbled upon the above clip. It made me laugh, so I'll share the good times with all of you.
(Sarcasm ON) Do you believe in global warming, or "climate change"? Do you think that man is causing it, or even contributing to it? Uh oh. Be on the watch for Christopher Horner - he's after you. Did you know that you are a "green"? I didn't know that I was, at least, not until I heard him say it. As a matter of fact, if you are browsing this very site, then you probably are a "green". You are part of a vast conspiracy that is taking over all the governments of the world.
Continue after the break to find out why "the sky is not falling, despite the Green Left's best efforts". (Sarcasm OFF)
[Source: Ecorazzi]
The following points were taken from the "Conservative Book Service" editor's review of Christopher's book:
- Proof: media hype and deceptive Al Gore slide shows notwithstanding, greenhouse gas concentrations demonstrably do not determine temperatures
- The mainstream media's routinely sloppy, inaccurate reporting about evidence of global warming and other environmental matters
- More proof: The hole in the ozone layer - the 1980s manmade environmental crisis - was caused by the Antarctic atmosphere being too cold
- How environmentalists throughout modern history have instilled fear over one looming "crisis" or another with the aim of increasing government control over things big and small
- Why the environmental alarmists do whatever they can to avoid actual debate
- The environmentalist movement: not a grassroots phenomenon driven by scruffy idealists but an elite-driven movement that lards the coffers of pressure campaigns with wealth - commonly inherited, often corporate, and far too-frequently looted from the taxpayer
- Recent studies that have shown that the environment is actually flourishing - and how the greens have turned even these into evidence of our imminent doom
- "To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem": the environmentalists' openly anti-human agenda
- How real pollution problems can be addressed through the technological improvements that the Left is doing all it can to obstruct
- Al Gore's global warming jihad: how it will lead to massively higher costs and direct or indirect energy rationing - and probably many measures that are even worse
- How much of the budget for environmental pressure groups comes directly from taxpayers -- through grants for public "education" and congressional schemes designed to subsidize the greens' lawyers
- Green lunacy run amok: how even respectable political figures (and Slick Willie) say that the environmental damage caused by American industry is a greater threat than terrorism
- Why, as with other political crusades that fail in the arena of representative democracy, the greens now see the courts and supranational bodies as their best hopes
- How environmental policies come with a cost, often to the society as a whole, decreasing wealth, and so harming health - dangers the average environmentalist ignores
- How greens worship primitive lifestyles from afar, while those mired in them would kill to escape them
- How, almost without fail, global warming skeptics are charged with being stooges of industry - a charge that neither addresses the skeptic's criticism or question, nor reflects the fact that most of "industry" now actually supports the alarmists' agenda
- Ethanol: sobering evidence that it might not be good for the environment - and how the damage to soil from single-crop farming is probably more real than global warming
- How the risks of climate change policy far outweigh the risks that might realistically be expected as climate continues to change
So, all you "greens", what do you have to say for yourselves now? Huh?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Karen Catt 10:19PM (2/17/2007)
There are so many good reasons to move to cleaner technology and energy solutions -- this post is so convoluted I cannot even tell who's side you are on??? A lot of people outside the US are really bored with hearing US politics all of the time on this issue instead of progress. If citizens of the US would just take a look and see that they could be less greedy with their use of polluting and non renewable natural resources instead of argueing with each other about politics I doubt that would hurt anyone? Let's move forward, the rest of the world is leaving you behind…
Reply
Jeremy Korzeniewski 11:30PM (2/17/2007)
Karen, I am sorry that you had a hard time deciphering my post. No, I do NOT agree with Christopher, not on anything he says. He is absolutely wrong, in my opinion. Global warming is real, and man is at the very least a contributor. I was being sarcastic while I was writing about it earlier (sarcasm on, sarcasm off). We should definitely be moving to cleaner sources of energy.
Just because the U.S. Government doesn't seem to be doing much to help out the cause, we at this site are doing our best to support green technology in the automotive sector.
Reply
Tony Belding 9:43AM (2/18/2007)
Well, I largely agree with the points taken from his book. What we have today is global warming hysteria based on incomplete and biased science. To justify a worldwide upheaval to mitigate global warming, you have to show that it's really happening, show that it's caused by human industry, and show that the proposed mitigation effort will cause less harm than the warming it prevents. That last point is especially problematic.
Meanwhile, we have more tangible and pressing concerns. The oceans are being severely degraded by pollution and overfishing. That's the real foundation of Earth's ecosystem, and we ignore it at our peril.
Getting back to energy. . . We are facing Peak Oil. That may be starting now, or it may be 20 years out, but there's little doubt it's coming. We're facing global oil supplies dependent on Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela -- that's not speculative at all, that's here and now. So my attitude is, let's focus on the problems that are tangible, immediate and pressing, rather than be distracted by a lot of hand waving over something that we won't really know for sure until probably 40 years from now.
There are many things the world (and particularly the USA) can and should be doing to move away from fossil fuels. These are things we should be doing with or without the global warming issue hanging over our heads. So, in a sense Global Warming is a double-edged sword. It's a great rallying cry for environmentalists, and it's great for pushing us toward doing some things that we should be doing anyhow. But. . . If the science turns out to be flawed (like the global cooling scare in the 1980s), it ultimately could lead to a huge setback for the whole environmental movement.
Reply
Steve 9:48AM (2/18/2007)
Karen,
There are those of us who do care here in the US so the polarity of "If citizens of the US would..." is quite an unfair statement. I agree that we, the US, have a lot of ground to cover but in the end, we're all citizens of the global planet and should rally as such around issues such as man's impact on the climate.
I'm in the US and apparently on your side in support of leading a smarter life around renewables, less fossil fuel consumption, recycyling, etc. Lets be one voice, the voice of the earth's conscience, not fragmented voices by each country!
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 11:24AM (2/18/2007)
Christopher Horner makes some interesting and valid points. One being that the movement to clean up the environment in the US predates the "green" movement. I can personally recall efforts in California beginning around the late 1960's -- and the air in LA is much cleaner now than it was then.
One of the things that a prosperous society tends to want (and act upon) is a clean environment, and that has nothing to do with PC "global warming/cooling". It has to do with wanting to live comfortably and in good health.
I might even qualify as a 'green' myself, to the extent that I think it is foolish to foul your own nest. To that extent, I do things that reduce my energy usage, like purchasing an automobile based on its mpg and utility, and making plans to move closer to work sometime this year. I also pay attention to the current happenings in energy technology so that I can take advantage of the ones that make sense.
Along the way, I have noticed that many of the Politically Correct items on the 'green' agenda make no sense, and several of them are even self-contradictory.
Reply
Doug R 11:56AM (2/18/2007)
Jeremy, it's very clear which side your on. Karen just needs to pay attention. You didn't know you were a "green"? Dude, I wasn't born yesterday.
I became very concerned with this issue about 20 yrs. ago. I began to research the subject on my own, taking all sides into account objectively. I came to a blaringly obvious conclusion. If you listen to Al Gore, the media, the climate alarmists, it's a no brainer, we're changing the climate. If you spend 5 minutes with an open mind and a genuine desire for the truth, holes and cracks abound in this theory instantaneously.
This is basically an updated version a book I read years ago called "Eco Scam" (St. Martin Press) by Ronald Bailey. He backed everthing he states with footnotes and fact.
I have not been able to refutiate "any" of the points listed above. This very blog site has proven one of them on multiple occasions. I have given a plethora of examples of data challenging the man-induced views of climate. My data has gone unchallenged and I'm accused of being a "lackey of big oil" everytime without fail.
Which brings me to the point that I have yet to find a single view held by climate alarmists that truly holds water. Either they ignore data that doesn't suit their needs or manipulate it to do the same. There's genuine scientific research going on right now that unless you dig, you'll never hear about. Every bit of which is refutiating "manmade global warming".
More and more evidence of a medieval warming period that dwarfs the current alarmist predictions. But they said it's "the warmest it's been in 2,000 years"?
They've discovered significant levels of magmatism and hydrothermal activity they never thought was occuring where it was occuring, warming the oceans and releasing huge amounts of CO2. No doubt now that the ocean is warming itself and is also responsible for the vast majority of CO2 increase, not man.
I could write pages of examples of bogus data and predictions given by the alarmist movement, from 20+ yrs. ago to the latest Paris pow wow. If you truly care about the environment, then check it out for yourself.
Reply
Jeremy Korzeniewski 11:36AM (2/18/2007)
Marketing is often the best when it polarizes and infuriates some while building a rally-cry for others. On this account, Horner has most definitely succeeded... I also agree with some of what is presented in his outlook and his book, but hate the way he went about doing it. To suggest that the "green" movement is some massive conspiracy tainting all of the governments in the world is ludicrous and mildly insulting. I for one have little to do with politics or even opinions of them, and I still manage to attempt to minimize my impact on the environment. What does that make me? A "green" in Horners eyes... As I said earlier, good marketing -- we are all sitting here thinking and talking about it, aren't we?
Reply
Chris M 4:47PM (2/18/2007)
Sounds like Mr. Horners book is a standard far right-wing screed, taking quotes out of context and creating a long list of bogus straw-man arguments to bash the mainstream environmental conservation movement.
He also loves to quote the lunatic fringe and pretend those wild eyed extremests represent the entire environmental movement. The moderate environmental majority do not support starving children, do not oppose clean technology, and do not favor "primitive lifestyles" over modern civilization.
Of course, one could paint the entire Religious Right Conservative movement as far worse than it really is by selectively quoting their lunatic fringe and taking quotes out of context, too.
Reply
Doug R 1:44PM (2/19/2007)
I'd like to make a correction. I wrote (#7) that the ocean was responsible for the vast majority of CO2 increase. I meant to say the ocean and other known sources are responsible for the vast majority of CO2, not man.
In the early 90s, one of the pieces of evidence stated by the environmentalist movement was that man was emitting 8-12 billion cubic tons of emissions into the atmosphere every year. A figure that alarmed me to say the least, until I read the info. for myself. What they conveniently failed to mention was that the earth itself was responsible for 250+ billion cubic tons yearly.
A Harvard Physicist at the time said that based on these figures it was astronomically impossible for manmade emissions to cause the temp. change that was being claimed at the time.
He turned out to be right. This was near the beginning of the second 10 yr. period of "in the next 10 years,........." predictions that failed to unfold. We're in our 3th prediction period now. Technically 4th, if you include the "human caused global cooling" that didn't come to fuition as well.
Current estimates for human emissions is somewhere between 10-14 billion. Some legit scientists have acknowledged that manmade emissions could be a very small contributor, minimal at best.
I orginally thought the notion that environmentalism was a front for the political propagation of socialism/communism to be outlandish. Then I realized that there has been an overwhelming amount of attention on capitalist countries and practically none on the communist ones.
Yes, we've had our period of ignorance (i.e. the great lakes, love canal, etc.) and their is always room for improvement. But as Howard has already stated above, their have been tremendous improvements over the years in every form of industrialization, yes, even the oil industry. This has been all but ignored by the environmentalists.
Anyone doing any study on their own knows that there has been nothing comparable to the reckless destruction of the environment by the industry of communist countries during the entire history of man. This also has been all but ignored by environmentalists.
There are multiple examples of this being true. Here's one, nuclear power:
Three mile island could have been a serious accident. It should never happen again. Whether you think we should develop nuclear power or not, the resulting hollywood induced backlash basically killed nuclear tech in this country.
Now enter Chernobyl, a nuclear disaster that makes 3 mile island look like a joke. It's like comparing a firecracker with the detonation of a nuclear bomb. This accident got very little admonishment from the left wing environmentalists. To say 3 mile island got more attention would be a vast understatement.
All but Ralph Nader, to this day, have refused to acknowledge the dirty little secret about Chernobyl. The reactor design was inherently unstable. A design the incessantly criticized U.S. Nuclear Commission would've never have approved. Why was such a dangerous design implemented? Even Ralph Nader wouldn't touch this one. Because you could have Nuclear power and produce weapons grade material at the same time. If it had been the American government doing this, we'd have never heard the end of it.
The Kyoto treaty itself focused mainly on western capitalist countries and left out many countries completely that had no emissions reduction whatsoever.
Reply
Global Warmer 2:12PM (2/19/2007)
"Karen, I am sorry that you had a hard time deciphering my post. No, I do NOT agree with Christopher, not on anything he says. He is absolutely wrong, in my opinion. Global warming is real, and man is at the very least a contributor. I was being sarcastic while I was writing about it earlier (sarcasm on, sarcasm off). We should definitely be moving to cleaner sources of energy."
But all those points you listed after turning "sarcasm off" are completely valid. So how would you answer your own question?
Reply
Jeremy Korzeniewski 2:37PM (2/19/2007)
I was incorrect when I said that I do not agree with anything Horner says, there are things that he says that I can agree with. But, the way he goes about saying it is, in my opinion, disgraceful. Because I believe in Global Warming, I am a "green" in his eyes on everything. Pay attention to his video - comparing some German environmentalist with some odd ideas (but not actions) with Hitler is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you agree? And, how would you feel if you were grouped right along with that German as the target of his book?
Anyway, the short version is that Horner is being just as radical for his side as the radicals that he likes to point fingers at on the other side. Bad form.
Reply
Alex 5:15PM (10/10/2007)
People like Doug apparently don't realize that Earth's natural emissions are kept roughly in balance by Earth's natural absorption, with significant natural fluctuations occurring infrequently and over millennia. An accumulation obviously means that's out of whack, and there's more than one line of evidence telling us why.
Reply