Sunday, January 14, 2007

POLITICAL UPDATE--Environmentalism

This update focuses on environmentalism. Environmentalism is an anti-human philosophy that seeks the end of civilization and genocide against humanity. It has already killed millions through a ban on DDT. Environmentalists promote the myth of human caused global warming to impose socialism and poverty on America.

Joseph D'Agostino shows that banning DDT has killed millions.
Deroy Murdock explains that environmentalists want millions to die.
George Reisman explains that environmentalism is anti-human.
Jerome Corsi explains the truth about global warming.
Dan Gainor reports the media's changing stories on climate change.
Robert Novak shows that Democrats want to make America poorer.

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.


Anonymous said...

Extra! Extra! Allan does it once again! Human Events pundits passed off as credible sources! Yes, that’s right. Once again this website has posted a "political update" on a chosen topic and once again all information comes from the conservative pundits on Human Events and LewRockwell. Comments about this blog being conservative notwithstanding, the Western College GOP must come to terms with something. Either you want to stimulate open and honest political debate on topics critical to our society, or you want simply to confer amongst yourselves using the same politically biased information. Given the conflicting message contained in a pervious post, it is hard to know which the case is.

Nevertheless, your views on environmentalism need to be debated and subjected to scrutiny. One question not addressed by Mr. Corsi in his diatribe is whether or not there is a scientific consensus that releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere could cause the planet to warm. Can you present to me a serious scientific study that says such emissions have no effect? If you cannot, there is indeed consensus regarding the dangers such emissions pose. While it is not clear how fast such changes are occurring and whether greenhouse gas emissions are the sole cause of it, prudence would dictate caution in their continued use. Need I point out to you that major donors to both political parties are the very corporations whose entire industries are dependent on the burning of fossil fuels? It is also interesting that Mr. Corsi does not deal with this essential question but rather focuses on the economic consequences of efforts to reduce emissions by government mandate. There is much to be said on that point but it must be recognized as tacit acknowledgment by him that the problem is not whether humans have an effect on climate, but rather what is the most socially beneficial way to deal with it.

The other articles in this series are laughable and do not merit extended comment. Regarding DDT usage, you should know that there are groups (such as the WTO) who advocate the use of DDT in small amounts as an effective weapon against the transmission of malaria via mosquitoes. Thus, the idea there is some sort of fanatical resistance to using DDT by the monolithic environmental movement is another example of your not wanting to see the other side outside of your own dogma. Finally, to suggest that the same environmental movement wishes to see countless humans exterminated is beyond the pale even for this blog. By your rational, all weapons industries that seek the use of their products, which by their very nature take human life, are open to the same criticism. If you are not prepared to concede this point, you might wish to rethink your take on environmentalism.

Finally, in conclusion, I beg the sensible members of the Western College Republicans to disavow these posts from Allan and repute them for the fanatical dogma they are. Such postings do not serve your cause and only result in the alienation of moderates. Allan’s message is one of extremism and your acceptance of it serves as ammunition for those you seek to argue against. Please find the courage to reintroduce reason into political discourse. It is up to you!

Conservative First said...

The fact that a source is conservative is in no way evidence that it is not credible. You have yet to provide any evidence that Human Events is not a reliable source. Objecting to any argument on the grounds that it is conservative is contrary to the spirit of rational debate.

I'm not sure how scientists are supposed to prove that something can't happen, but there are plenty who disagree that humanity is the cause of warming: Doctor Corsi and others have presented a great deal of evidence for the alternative hypothesis that the sun is the cause of global warming.

The ban on DDT was entirely the fault of the environmental movement, specifically the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. Due to this ban, millions of people died needlessly of malaria despite there being no evidence whatsoever that DDT hurts anybody. Thankfully, in recent years, the debate over DDT has moved towards the side of reason, and some liberals now admit that the ban was a mistake.

My conclusions about the environmental movement are based on a great deal of evidence, including their own words. Read the quotes in this article: Will you repudiate these ideas, the people who spoke them, and the organizations they represent?

A.J. said...

Well said, Allan.

And no, none of us will disavow anything Allan writes. If we disagree, we will say so. We have a disclaimer at the top of the blog that states that what an individual writes on this blog is not the view of the entire group, no more than your rants are the view of the entire left.

Anonymous said...

My original comments mention how time and time again you pull information from political websites about issues related to matters wholly other than politics. Do you have updates on issues of social policy where people can have differing views about what is best? Yes. Can such differing views occur with regard to combating climate change? Most certainly. However, if your goal is to question the fundamental understandings of the arguments on which that policy is based, you had better be prepared to back that up. Where are the studies that supposedly disprove climate change? You have not produced one. Corsi did not produce one. He talked at length about how the current policy proposals to address the issue(Kyoto etc.) are bad. This is, as I mentioned, tacit acknowledgement that climate change is occurring and must be dealt with. At the end, he linked to one small article in the BBC, which you say is "a great deal of evidence" that the sun is a major factor. The article itself mentions no study and, it is worth noting, the proponents of this "great deal of evidence" themselves say curbing fossil fuel emissions is a goal worth pursuing. So then, where are the studies? Where is this proof?

Next you produced a list with the names of scientists who urged the Canadian government to undertake a review of their policies towards combating climate change. Yet again, this is not a study showing that the climate is not changing. The scientists admit climate change is occurring and sensible public policy should take this into account. The precise causal mechanisms of climate change are not wholly understood. In this they are correct. What you fail to see is their point that something is happening and it needs to be investigated. They, at best, say climate science is "emerging" and that many things remain unclear to us; hardly a good example of "the truth about global warming," which Corsi was supposed to provide.

My overriding point through all of this has been that time and time again you only reference political commentators. The update on the environment was by far the best example and thus it elicited my longest response. I have never received an answer as to why this blog never cites studies in academic journals. You routinely list the same people over and over (D'Agostino, Novak, etc.). What work has Corsi done in environmental sciences? What studies has he published about climate change? He has a PhD yes, but in political science not earth science! Now, if AJ and others are prepared to accept these arguments that is their business. I am not; therefore, I shall continue to "rant" as AJ says by which I assume he means demand evidence. That is the spirit of rational discourse. Your posts would be no better if they linked always to CommonDreams or any other liberal outlet. It is not the conservative bend that is the problem; it is that your evidence does not support your conclusions. For this you must and will continue to be challenged.

Conservative First said...

Read the quotes in this article: Will you repudiate these ideas, the people who spoke them, and the organizations they represent?

Anonymous said...

I would like you to think more about what you are asking me to do. I am not going to give you the easy answer you are looking for because I am skeptical you know anything about the organizations in question beyond what you have read in politically suspect websites. That you would even ask if I support the wanton murder of millions or billions of people is a bit ridiculous. Let us hope you can think of a more suitable question and one that is not a waste of time.