As Americans love Coca-Cola and Islamists love death, so I love baiting greens and liberals and most especially liberal greens. But I don’t do it just for fun, you know. In fact I don’t even do it mainly for fun. The reason I rail so often against so many tenets of the green faith -- from biofuels to carbon trading to the ludicrous attempts to get polar bears designated as an endangered species -- is because I sincerely believe they are among the greatest current threats to the advancement of humankind. Yes, that’s right: greens aren’t the solution. They’re public enemy number one. . .(via Planet Gore)
Check out all the soft features in any newspaper. They were all commissioned by editors on the same middle-class eco-guilt-trip: consumption is naughty, GM is dangerous, organic is close to godliness, non-local produce is sinful produce, wind farms are actually rather striking and if they ruin every last square acre of unspoilt British upland, well, maybe that’s just the price we’ll have to pay -- a bit like all those lovely old railings we had to melt down to win the last war.
But what if they’re wrong? What if climate change is normal? What if the new hair-shirt chic is holding back economic recovery? What about the Kenyan green-bean growers -- don’t they deserve to make a living too? What if the billions and billions of pounds being stolen from our wallets by our governments to ‘combat climate change’ are being squandered to no useful purpose? What if instead of alleviating the problem, misguided eco-zealots are actually making things worse?
That’s what I believe, anyway, and if there were space I’d be more than happy to explain why in lavish detail using all sorts of highly convincing evidence provided by top-notch scientists. Unfortunately, there isn’t, so you’ll have to go somewhere like ClimateDepot.com, or the hilarious Planet Gore at National Review Online or the Watts Up With That? blog for your ammo.
My purpose here is not to convince any green waverers of the justice of my cause, merely to point up the quite nauseating arrogance and bullying self-righteousness with which the modern green movement cleaves to its ideological position. Indeed, it doesn’t even think of its ideological position as an ideological position any more, but as a scientific truth so comprehensively proven that there is no longer need for any debate.
Hence the snotty dismissiveness with which they wave away our arguments. In their Manichean weltanschauung the world now divides into two categories: on the one hand, caring, nurturing, sensitive, intelligent eco-types who understand the threat of global warming and want to make the planet a lovelier place; on the other, morally purblind, selfish, ugly, greedy deniers who can’t even pass sea otters at play without thinking how much more entertaining they’d look drenched in tanker spillage.
I venture to suggest that the issues are rather more complex than that; that the vast majority of so-called ‘deniers’ are motivated by a love of the planet every bit as intense as that of the ‘warmists’. It’s just that our love is maybe tempered with a touch more rationalism, that’s all.
Aristotle-to-Ricardo-to-Hayek turn the double play way better than Plato-to-Rousseau-to-Rawls
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
James Delingpole in the May 13th Spectator (U.K.):
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Delingpole touches on a point often mentioned, but never addressed on the green side. What about the moral preening? When that accusation is made at greens, what is it that they see when they examine themselves?
As a conservative, I am familiar with people making moral accusations that I am selfish, heartless, irrational. I have taken those seriously and searched my motives in order to see if the accusations hold any truth, and if such might be coloring my views. (I will not bore the reader with a lengthy dissertation on my conscience.) Where is the comparable self-scrutiny on the left?
They don't engage in it. Because everywhere they read/see--the New York Times, the White House, Hollywood--everyone tells them what they are doing is virtuous. So why bother with self-scrutiny?
I dunno. Personal growth? Citizenship? Honesty?
I imagine other reasons they might self-examine will occur to you all.
> most especially liberal greens.
I like liberal greens, but only with as a side with steak and potatoes...
LOL -- word verif is "ariva" -- "Andale! Andale!! Ariba riba riba!!"
AVI, as you are no doubt aware, Dr. Sanity approaches this overall issue time and again in discussing their pathologies.
Some of her key psychological terms in this regard are 'projection' and 'denial'.
Since she's a professional psychiatrist (she was the mission specialist on the Challenger mission), I assume she's capable of making those interpretations as a professional might -- for her, it's not "arm-chair pop psychology".
She's capable of actually having one of these people at least temporarily committed.
A recent example
>>She's capable of actually having one of these people at least temporarily committed.>>
Heh. Can you imagine the headlines??
_That_ would be a rare treat!!
"I have a dream. . ."
Post a Comment