Antimulticulture
2005-12-05 11:54:00 UTC
Common Sense Environmentalism
http://www.humaneventsonline.com
by Nima Sanandaji
Jun 30, 2005
The environmentalist left constantly warns us about how global warming will
destroy our planet. Water levels will rise and drown all land.
Desertification will cause millions of poor people to starve to death. The
Gulf Stream will change course so that Europe will become a cold and barren
continent. Human life is in danger of an unimaginable disaster if we do not
dismantle the industrial world and join hands in a global socialist farming
economy. This doomsday message is thought to our children in their schools
as well as preached to the worlds governments. But does it really make
sense?
Common sense teaches us not to listen to environmentalists. For almost a
hundred years we have been warned that the earth's natural resources are
going to be depleted in a few years. Not a single resource has been
depleted, due to market mechanisms. During the 1960s and the 1970s
environmentalists told us that billions would soon die due to
overpopulation. They were wrong. During the 1970s and 1980s we were told
that the Sahara desert was expanding due to human activity. It was found
that this was part of a natural historical cycle.
During the 1980s and the 1990s, we were warned that people would die due to
lack of oxygen since the rainforests were cut down. There was no science
behind this statement. During the same period we were told that up to 50% of
the species on the Earth would die out in one or two decades. According to
the UN only approximately 0.7% of the planets species died out between
1980-2000. Nobody has been so wrong, so often, as the environmentalist
movement.
The environmentalist ideology has its roots among the political left.
Indeed, it is not a coincidence that environmentalism grew strong as an
ideology at the same time as the Soviet Union and other communist countries
fell. As their ideal society was proven to be an impoverished dictatorship
that murdered millions of innocents and held slave labour camps, socialist
intellectuals simply created new ideologies. Postmodernism, the new left,
left wing feminism and environmentalism all had their roots in left-wingers
seeking new arguments to expand the power of government. An important
driving power behind environmentalist ideology has always been hatred
towards capitalism, western culture and the United States.
But is there nothing to the global warming theory? Indeed, the Earths
temperature has been rising the past years. But this is most likely due to
natural phenomenon. A thousand years ago our planet was 2 degrees warmer
than it is today. When the Vikings found Greenland it was indeed a green
island. Due to natural cycles, the global temperature started to decline and
between about 1560 and 1850 the earth went through what is called the "small
ice age". Since then the temperature has been rising towards a more moderate
degree. The majority of the temperature increase that occurred during the
20th century in fact occurred during the first half, before the release of
greenhouse gases had reached high levels.
Global warming is most likely not caused by human activities. More
importantly, global warming would not be a disaster. Even if the Earths
temperature would go up 1-2 degrees, water levels would only raise a couple
of inches. Mass scale desertification is not very likely. If a place was not
a desert a thousand years ago, why would it become one if the temperature
goes back to that previous level? The Gulf Stream seems to have been intact
for many thousands of years. It is unlikely that it would be so sensitive to
temperature changes in the range of a couple of degrees. Besides, the effect
that transfer of heat from the Americas to Northern Europe is by about 80%
due to winds and not the Gulf Stream.
These alarming theories are popular simply because they are alarming. When
the Christians went to Scandinavia they told the Vikings that hell was a
very hot place. This wasn't very scary for residents of the cold
Scandinavian countries, so the message was soon changed to saying that hell
was a cold place, which proved a much more effective argument. It is by the
same logics that environmentalists have envisioned a world where small
changes in the earths temperature would lead to a frozen Europe, a
decertified Africa and a drowned Asia; intimidate people by telling them
that the worst possible situation will happen.
Common sense tells us that global warming most likely will be beneficial to
most places on the earth, since the land masses in the world that are too
cold are larger than those which are too warm. Either way, the difference
will only be slight. Measures such as the Kyoto protocol are meaningless.
This treaty will cost huge sums of money and create a global world order,
but do little to stop the emission of greenhouse gases. The
environmentalists envision many more treaties. Their goal is to abandon
capitalism and industrialism and create a global socialist farmers society.
Given the facts and the history of the environmentalist movement, does it
really make sense to follow their advice?
-x-
Mr. Sanandaji is the president of the Swedish think tank Captus and the
editor of Captus Journal. He is admitted to graduate studies in biochemistry
at Cambridge and is the author of an environmentalist research paper.
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multiculty
"Abolish Multiculty and String Up The Traitors!"
http://www.humaneventsonline.com
by Nima Sanandaji
Jun 30, 2005
The environmentalist left constantly warns us about how global warming will
destroy our planet. Water levels will rise and drown all land.
Desertification will cause millions of poor people to starve to death. The
Gulf Stream will change course so that Europe will become a cold and barren
continent. Human life is in danger of an unimaginable disaster if we do not
dismantle the industrial world and join hands in a global socialist farming
economy. This doomsday message is thought to our children in their schools
as well as preached to the worlds governments. But does it really make
sense?
Common sense teaches us not to listen to environmentalists. For almost a
hundred years we have been warned that the earth's natural resources are
going to be depleted in a few years. Not a single resource has been
depleted, due to market mechanisms. During the 1960s and the 1970s
environmentalists told us that billions would soon die due to
overpopulation. They were wrong. During the 1970s and 1980s we were told
that the Sahara desert was expanding due to human activity. It was found
that this was part of a natural historical cycle.
During the 1980s and the 1990s, we were warned that people would die due to
lack of oxygen since the rainforests were cut down. There was no science
behind this statement. During the same period we were told that up to 50% of
the species on the Earth would die out in one or two decades. According to
the UN only approximately 0.7% of the planets species died out between
1980-2000. Nobody has been so wrong, so often, as the environmentalist
movement.
The environmentalist ideology has its roots among the political left.
Indeed, it is not a coincidence that environmentalism grew strong as an
ideology at the same time as the Soviet Union and other communist countries
fell. As their ideal society was proven to be an impoverished dictatorship
that murdered millions of innocents and held slave labour camps, socialist
intellectuals simply created new ideologies. Postmodernism, the new left,
left wing feminism and environmentalism all had their roots in left-wingers
seeking new arguments to expand the power of government. An important
driving power behind environmentalist ideology has always been hatred
towards capitalism, western culture and the United States.
But is there nothing to the global warming theory? Indeed, the Earths
temperature has been rising the past years. But this is most likely due to
natural phenomenon. A thousand years ago our planet was 2 degrees warmer
than it is today. When the Vikings found Greenland it was indeed a green
island. Due to natural cycles, the global temperature started to decline and
between about 1560 and 1850 the earth went through what is called the "small
ice age". Since then the temperature has been rising towards a more moderate
degree. The majority of the temperature increase that occurred during the
20th century in fact occurred during the first half, before the release of
greenhouse gases had reached high levels.
Global warming is most likely not caused by human activities. More
importantly, global warming would not be a disaster. Even if the Earths
temperature would go up 1-2 degrees, water levels would only raise a couple
of inches. Mass scale desertification is not very likely. If a place was not
a desert a thousand years ago, why would it become one if the temperature
goes back to that previous level? The Gulf Stream seems to have been intact
for many thousands of years. It is unlikely that it would be so sensitive to
temperature changes in the range of a couple of degrees. Besides, the effect
that transfer of heat from the Americas to Northern Europe is by about 80%
due to winds and not the Gulf Stream.
These alarming theories are popular simply because they are alarming. When
the Christians went to Scandinavia they told the Vikings that hell was a
very hot place. This wasn't very scary for residents of the cold
Scandinavian countries, so the message was soon changed to saying that hell
was a cold place, which proved a much more effective argument. It is by the
same logics that environmentalists have envisioned a world where small
changes in the earths temperature would lead to a frozen Europe, a
decertified Africa and a drowned Asia; intimidate people by telling them
that the worst possible situation will happen.
Common sense tells us that global warming most likely will be beneficial to
most places on the earth, since the land masses in the world that are too
cold are larger than those which are too warm. Either way, the difference
will only be slight. Measures such as the Kyoto protocol are meaningless.
This treaty will cost huge sums of money and create a global world order,
but do little to stop the emission of greenhouse gases. The
environmentalists envision many more treaties. Their goal is to abandon
capitalism and industrialism and create a global socialist farmers society.
Given the facts and the history of the environmentalist movement, does it
really make sense to follow their advice?
-x-
Mr. Sanandaji is the president of the Swedish think tank Captus and the
editor of Captus Journal. He is admitted to graduate studies in biochemistry
at Cambridge and is the author of an environmentalist research paper.
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Union Against Multiculty
"Abolish Multiculty and String Up The Traitors!"