The entire concept of being scared of change is what drives and motivates people to be fearful and even paranoid in the modern environmental movement. The reason for this at its heart is that people are fearful of change. And nowhere has society changed more than in modern society where we have gone from an agrarian society to a modern office worker society in just 100 years. This dramatic change has left people without an outlet to discuss each change individually and so these people no longer promote such ideas as conservation and science when they advocate for change. And so these people have turned into fear hustlers and fear promoters who spread their fears to everyone else under the guise of “the environment” or even homeland security. These calls to change the world are based on the simple concepts of fear and paranoia.
For most people, the entire concept of Rio+20 or United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, is really nothing to be worried about. Indeed, most of the world’s (larger) leaders are staying away and otherwise skipping this massive and ironically “unsustainable” party where vast amounts of food and drink will be consumed at a rather “unsustainable” level and where I have no doubt large amounts of illicit drugs and other forms of partying will occur. But, for appearance sakes, they will send “Delegates” to party. The amount of CO2 emissions put out due to air travel and other forms of travel just make this entire event a joke. What is the point to this escapade if the world will no longer agree to anything due to nothing but the current recession world-wide?
In my previous post, I went into the philosophy of AGW (catastrophic) and how it emphasizes the destruction of our society for some far-out fantasy. This is the basis of healthy scepticism on CAGW and I think its key to note 2 things in particular:
1) Until you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man is “destroying the planet” you can not radically transform society. That is just illogical. So therefore the big mistake in simply believing because we can not prove it wrong. This turn evidential procedures on its head when normally new theories in science have to displace old theories and old ideas. To put it into perspective, to say that the climate changed naturally before man and then suddenly it stopped changing is so silly as to be comical.
2) Any transformation must be quantified and otherwise explained as to why we are making these changes and what it is we are going to accomplish. We can not afford to remake society in such a drastic method as the greens want us to. The UK for instance on their quest are going to spend just short of 1 TRILLION pounds and for this they are not going to save the world. This huge expense is not justified by science, but by a belief that man is inherently evil.
This story is from back in Jan. six monthes ago from today (Jan. 2011) and its worth a relook.
Back in Jan., green organizations pushed the not so news that whales were in danger versus the lives of sailors who were under threat back then from pack ice that had formed rather unexpectantly. Needless to say, this situation worked itself out and the sailors were all rescued by big ice-breakers. But the point was that the article on “whales being threatened” was in the very same waters that these sailors were in the process of dying. In any regard here is the post in its entirety from back then:
Yes, some whales *might cough cough be at risk due to oil exploration. This might not
seem like much of a story, but it contrasts with the story of 348 members of two
fishing ships stuck in pack ice that formed very quickly in the same sea. Is
there even one mention of this occurance in those stories? Nope, not even