Posts Tagged ‘Environment’

Soylent Green

February 2, 2014

A little while back I made a reference to the movie Soylent Green while writing on a very different subject. I’ve been thinking about that movie ever since so I might as well write about it. It must be around twenty years since I last watched Soylent Green on video so I only remember the general plot. Soylent Green was based on Harry Harrison’s 1966 science fiction novel Make Room!, Make Room!. I’ve read the book more recently. The movie and book share the same setting, an overpopulated, polluted, dystopian world and mostly the same plot, a detective is investigating a murder in the impossible circumstances of a dying New York City. There are a number of differences, though. Make Room! is set in the year 1999 rather than 2022. I guess the producers of Soylent Green thought that adding another 23 years might make the setting more plausible. Soylent green is not made of people in the book, it is plankton. The murder that the Charlton Heston character is investigating had nothing to do with the corporation or with the environment. The victim was a mob boss and the only reason the police want his murderer is because the New York mafia is afraid that a rival organization is moving in and they are putting pressure on corrupt officials to learn if this is the case.

The book is a whole lot more depressing than the movie. Harry Harrison works to make the world of Make Room!a world of poverty and misery, without any hope for improvement. All people have to hope for is the world might end. In fact, one of the characters is a crazy hermit who expects the end to come when the year ends. When 1999 becomes the year 2000 without incident, he can only despair. Water and food are tightly rationed and diseases of malnutrition, such as kwashiorkor are widespread in the United States. Cars, no longer working because there is no more gasoline, sit abandoned in parking lots, to be used as shelter by the large population of homeless people. Freight is transported by wagons pulled by people. Overpopulation is only getting worse, since the masses of permanently unemployed people have baby after baby to qualify for larger welfare benefits. It goes on and on.

There is, of course, a certain amount of preachiness throughout the descriptions of the miserable life of the future. At one point the Edward G. Robinson character discusses how the world came to be in such awful shape. He laments that if only people started to take overpopulation seriously about thirty years before (when the book was published), the world wouldn’t have been ruined.

These sort of sentiments were widespread throughout the sixties and seventies. This was the era of Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb and The End of Affluence. It was widely accepted that unless major changes were made, the world of the future was going to be nightmarish. We couldn’t afford have the luxury of an affluent lifestyle, or even basic freedoms if we wanted to save the planet. This sort of messaging was always in the background while I was growing up in the seventies and early eighties and I believed it. I worried about global warming, overpopulation, and the depletion of natural resources. I considered myself an environmentalist.

What changed? Well, if you look around, you might happen to observe that the world was not an overpopulated dystopia in the year 1999 nor is it likely to become one by the year 2022. As I grew older, I couldn’t help noticing that none of the horrible scenarios predicted by the environmental alarmed ever seemed to actually occur. We always had just ten years to save the planet. When ten years elapsed, we still had just ten years to save the planet. I also actually read some environmentalist literature and even got a degree in Environmental Studies. I took what I call my environmentalist wacko class. That helped me to learn just how anti-capitalist, anti-technology, anti-science, anti-American, and anti-human many environmentalists actually are. I have since developed the deepest skepticism about environmentalist claims of doom and gloom. I am on to them.

This is why I am a global warming skeptic. There are some who have suggested that I should defer to the experts. I am told that ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and that drastic action is needed right now. I am not impressed. I happen to possess a functioning memory and very little of what these people are saying is any different than what they were saying forty years ago. Their solution to the crises is the same: the masses must live like medieval serfs while an all powerful government of the elite decide what’s best for everyone.

At some point, you realize that the boy cried wolf is a liar, especially when he seems to have an agenda which involves getting the villagers to hand over wealth and power to the only boy who can save them from the wolf only he sees.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unicorns

May 8, 2013

I got another e-mail from Organizing for Action.

David –

If I said to you: “Unicorns exist, I totally just saw one galloping down the street,” most likely you’d give me a sad look and get on with your day.

But what if House Speaker Boehner and the chairman of the House Science Committee said they didn’t know if the science behind climate change was real. (Yeah. That actually happened.)

Now obviously, it doesn’t matter if I just make stuff up about unicorns. But it matters, and it matters a whole lot, that so many of our elected officials in Washington who represent us are denying science and using that denial to refuse to take action on climate change.

It’s actually dangerous — and it matters how we react.

Each and every day that congressional leaders hold on to their bizarre fantasy world, OFA is going to be there, not letting them get away with it.

Add your name and say you’re ready to hold climate deniers accountable.

We’re going to make them say it out loud — either double-down on their claims, or come to their senses. The National Academy of Sciences and more than 13,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers all confirm that the carbon pollution in our atmosphere today is causing dangerous climate change.

The sticky thing about the truth is that it’s the truth whether Congress likes it or not.

Unicorns don’t exist, climate change is real, and we said we weren’t going to let this go.

Sign here and help Congress get real:

http://my.barackobama.com/Hold-Climate-Deniers-Accountable

Thanks,

Ivan

Ivan Frishberg
Climate Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action

I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss out of hand an account of a unicorn viewing out. Although I have never seen a unicorn, that does not mean they don’t exist, although I have to admit the evidence that unicorns are real is slim. If a person who I know to be honest and not subject to hallucinations were to tell me that he saw a unicorn, I would believe that he either saw a real unicorn or something that resembled a unicorn until I found evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, if a person who has had a history of not being very honest or who has often made doomsday predictions that have never come to pass, than I would be more skeptical.

I do not believe that climate change is settled science. I am not a climate scientist, so it is not likely that I possess the information and training to determine that on my own. Nevertheless, I have observed that the people who have been pushing the climate change hypothesis have not acted in an honest or honorable fashion. There is the use of the word “denier” with the implied resemblance to Holocaust denial. This is not a scientific or logical argument. This is name calling. There is the rebranding of the name of the crisis. You never hear “global warming” any more. The expression now is “climate change”. Why is that? Could it be that the Earth has not warmed significantly in the past few decades? There are scientists who are apparently communicating with each other on the best means of manipulating data to obtain the desired results. Shouldn’t science be in the business of following where the data leads, even if it disproves a cherished hypothesis? What is carbon pollution? Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring component of the Earth’s atmosphere. Every animal exhales carbon dioxide as a waste product of respiration.

Then there is the fact that for most of my life I have been told that an environmental catastrophe is just around the corner unless drastic action, which somehow always seems to involve an expansion of government into everyone’s personal lives, is begun right now! There is no time to debate! We have to act! And yet, the catastrophe never comes. How many times do we have to listen to the boy who cried “Wolf!” before we stop listening to him?

It would be better if Ivan Frishberg stuck to believing in unicorns. Believing in unicorns would do a lot less damage.

 

Obama Keeps His Promises

April 28, 2012

I got an update from the Truth Team today. Among the other talking points, they wanted me to be sure to remind everyone that Obama is doing his best to protect the environment.

Five steps President Obama has taken to protect our environment
Earth Day was this past weekend, which was a good time to note some of steps the President has taken to help protect the environment. Show others the environmental progress we’ve made over the past few years by sharing this post:

Here is the post.

Here are five firsts in environmental policy that President Obama has put in place to protect our environment and promote clean energy:

  1. Created the first-ever standard to limit greenhouse gases from new fossil-fuel-fired power plants, America’s largest individual sources of carbon pollution. [Source: EPA]
  2. Established the first fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks, which will prevent 270 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from polluting the air. [Source: The Hill]
  3. Put into place the first-ever national standard for mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants, which will prevent up to 130,000 cases of asthma symptoms every year. [Source: EPA]
  4. Approved the nation’s first-ever offshore wind farm, which will produce enough clean electricity to power over more than 200,000 homes. [Source: UPI]
  5. Approved dozens of renewable energy projects, including 16 utility-scale solar projects—the first ever on public lands. [Source: Department of Interior]

I’ll be sure and remember these firsts when rolling blackouts become a way of life because it is uneconomical to build any new power plants and when the next Solyndra type scandal hits the news.

Earth Day

April 22, 2012

Today is Earth Day. It also happens to be Vladimir Illich Lenin‘s birthday. Pick which ever one you want to observe. They are both celebrations of Communism.

Watermelons

December 23, 2011

When I am deciding whether or not to buy a book on some contemporary and controversial subject from Amazon.com, the first thing I do is check out the one-starred reviews If there are a number of such reviews from hysterical liberals who obviously haven’t read the book, I know it is worth reading. I have not been disappointed yet.

Watermelons by James Delingpole amply fulfills that criterion. Liberals are hysterical, and it is really, really good. Basically, the premise is that everything you think you know about global warming is simply wrong. Delingpole begins by examining the science and politics of global warming. Although the generally accepted narrative is that of a few brave Greens fighting against the power and money of Big Carbon, the truth, as Delingpole shows, is that there is quite a lot of money and potential power on the warming side. Far from being Davids, the environmental groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, or the Environmental Defense Fund are Goliaths in their own right with operating budgets as large as any multi-national corporation and CEOs with six-figure salaries.

The science is also far from settled. Along with the inherit uncertainties of modeling a system as complex as the Earth’s atmosphere, Delingpole also exposes the corruption of science and the fraud revealed in the Climate gate e-mails, and other sources.  He also debunks many of the myths that are still being used by Warmists.

Then there is the question of motive. Many Greens are in fact the watermelons of the title, that is to say environmentalists on the outside, but socialists on the inside. These are people who have decided that the only way to save the Earth and provide social justice is to circumvent national sovereignty and democratic institutions to form a sort of world government.  We might think they are all eco-Fascists but they are doing it all for our good.

This sounds a bit like the sort of crazy conspiracy theory promulgated by the sort of people that wear tinfoil hats, as James Delingpole readily admits. He has provided extensive citations to prove his points and as he points out, it is hardly a conspiracy when the people involved publish their plans for all the world to see.

I strongly recommend Watermelons as an enjoyable and informative guide to the science and politics of climate change. I think it would be an excellent gift to any Liberal friends or relatives. Not that it would change any minds, but it is always fun to watch Liberal’s heads explore when they have contact with information that doesn’t fit their worldview.

 

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming

July 31, 2011

Whether you are a true believer worried about the terrors of global warming (climate change/climate catastrophe) or a skeptic who wants some solid information to convince your friends, you have to read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and the Environment. If this well-researched book does not play an important role in finally debunking the global warming scare, then nothing ever will. Alas, I fear that nothing ever will since the hypothesis of manmade global warming has proved to be strangely unfalsifiable.

Even those who have followed this issue closely are sure to find at least one eye opener in this book. Just a few examples include,

 

  • The earth has not gotten warmer since 1998
  • There is no direct link in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature. Solar activity has far more influence
  • The 1990’s had a higher temperature than average because the weather stations in Siberia were closed down after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  • The Kyoto treaty is completely ineffective. Most of the countries that are increasing their carbon emissions, including China, India, Brazil, are exempt. Assuming the alarmists are correct, then at best, the Kyoto treaty will reduce the temperature increase by .07 ° C. That is assuming that the emission targets are met, which is impossible.
  • Evil corporations do not fund the global warming skeptics. In fact there are several corporations that stand to benefit from global warming legislation, including Duke Energy, DuPont, and BP

 

If after reading this book, you still are not convinced, ask yourself this. Why do the alarmists resort to deception so often?  From the climategate scandal to the hockey stick fraud, they exaggerate and lie. Why do they try to suppress dissenting views, if the science is all on their side? Why do they claim a consensus when none exists?

 

Global Warming is Here

July 12, 2011

The temperature has been over 90 degrees every day this week here in Madison, Indiana. I’ve noticed it has been getting warmer these past few months. The climate has changed from frigid to tropical. Al Gore was right. Global warming/climate change is real and it’s here! I’d better reduce my carbon footprint right away.

The carbon footprint as it is understood by pe...

My carbon footprints


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 427 other followers

%d bloggers like this: