Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
The sky over New York City was a falling sheet of white. Trails of
footprints, work boots, paw prints, sneakers and bird claws, told their own
story of how the residents of city were getting through the blizzard to their
daily errands. Shoppers lugged home milk as if cows were going extinct.
Miniature snowmen decorated mailboxes and garbage trucks towing orange plows clattered
down empty streets.
Nowhere in the city was the blizzard more pronounced than in Central Park,
designed a century ago to create a miniature forest in the heart of Manhattan.
Even the tallest trees, taller than any others in the city, were layered with
coats of snow and visibility had vanished into a cloud of whiteness.
And walking along a path in the Ramble, I heard a woman lecturing her children
on the dangers of what else, but Global Warming.
There is a madness
to walking through a blizzard and discussing Global Warming. A theory according
to which we should be sliding toward the tropics, awash in fleeing polar bears
and Florida style temperatures, instead of frantically shoveling our driveways.
To believe in Global Warming while stamping the snow off your boots is not a
matter of science. It is a matter of faith. The scientist sees what is, while
the believer has faith in what he cannot see. The scientist does not see Global
Warming in a blizzard.
The Warmist does. To see Global Warming while walking through a blizzard, is
itself an act of faith.
Every winter, Global Warming advocates stake their bets on a mild winter. And
every winter the snow and ice break their cars and shoes, but never their
Last year the New York Times was predicting the end of snow. This year the New
York Times building is snowlogged, but still keeping the faith.
No matter how much slush trails through its lobby, its writers must continue to
show people the pernicious effects of people driving to work and using extra
shopping bags. Digging out of a snowstorm and their own lies, Global Warming
advocates claim that colder winters are actually another effect of global
warming. Which may be renamed to Global Temperatures We Don't Like.
Walking through Central Park, it's easy to see how perverse the modern day
environmentalist has become in his view of the relationship between man and
Central Park was inspired by one of the co-founders of the Republican party,
New York Post editor, William Cullen Bryant, and co-created by Republican
architect and landscape designer Frederick Olmsted, to harmonize the natural
world and the urban one through human industry.
The New York Republicans of the 19th century viewed public parks as part of
their civilizing mission.
Central Park was created as part of an ongoing battle with the corrupt
Democratic Tammany Hall machine, which wanted segregated slums and downtrodden
workers who would rush to them as saviors and vote how they were told.
Bryant and Olmsted saw parks as a way to improve human health, inspire public
citizenship and build a strong republic.
Central Park's beauty is both natural and artificial. Modern environmentalists
often mistake it for a preserved space, but its natural beauty was the work of
human craftsmanship. The original site was a mess of swamps. The sort of place
that the EPA fights tooth and nail to protect for the environment. Had Central
Park remained a mass of swamps, the city and the country would have been worse
Instead of preserving the wetlands, Central Park's planners dredged them. They
created a place of great natural beauty by taking what was best in the natural
world and matching it to human use, instead of blindly worshiping at the pagan
altar of "Mother Nature". They built a lake so that visitors could
row boats. They set up rambling paths between woodlands of trees that they
planted. A meadow rose along with sheep and a shepherd. Everything was natural
environmentalists are fixated on holding back human development in order to
maintain wetlands, banning DDT to save the mosquito and campaigning against
agriculture to reduce population growth-- the visionaries behind Central Park
did not restrict human development for the sake of nature, instead they used
human industry and the state of the art technology of the time to turn a
decrepit site used for slaughterhouse refuse, swamps and shantytowns into a
magnificent park that seems effortlessly natural.
They did not do it to glorify nature, but to improve man.
Environmentalists demonize human industry and accomplishment as evil because they
worship nature. Humanity spoils the unspoiled natural environment. It kills the
mosquitoes, destroys malaria and turns lovely swamps into ugly parks full of
hideous children enjoying themselves.
In their worldview, for the environment to prosper, humanity must go into
decline. And when humanity prospers, they insist that the environment is in
Conservationists, who included the likes of President Theodore Roosevelt,
valued the natural world for what human beings can learn about themselves from engaging
with it. That was the philosophy behind Central Park, which to this day remains
an elegant demonstration of human accomplishment as applied to the natural
Global Warming is an ideological weapon by the environmentalists against human
civilization. It is part of a broader anti-civilization agenda by the left,
which values the natural world only because it sees it as a
"primitive" antidote to the complexities of civilization. That
romanticism is the borrowed hostility of the nomad to the farmer (and it is
very telling to look at Europe and see its intellectuals championing the
virtues of Bedouin nomads over London and Paris) taken up by bored
intellectuals, arguing against the complexity of civilization and for the noble
barbarism of the savage.
Where the conservationist values the natural world because of its beneficial
impact on the human spirit through cultivation and achievement, the
Environmentalist does not truly value the natural world, he does not love
nature, he only hates civilization. Where the conservationist sought out the
natural world for its civilizing effects, the environmentalist seeks it out for
its decivilizing effects. He does not want to be a better human man, but less
of a man. He wants to be a noble savage.
The conservationist sought to integrate the natural world into our lives in
order to build a better civilization. The environmentalist is not interested in
building a better human civilization. His objective can only succeed if every
human being, every building, factory, car and artifact vanished off the face of
the earth tomorrow. His environmentalism is a mask for his hostility to human
Central Park does not duplicate Manhattan before the arrival of the settlers, a
trendy bit of landscaping that environmentalists are rather fond of. But then
who besides environmentalists would fancy the idea of reverting Manhattan to a
swamp bordered island with poor water sources and high rates of disease?
Instead it creates something better, improving on the natural world,
cultivating land into a transcendent statement that is more about man than
Where Global Warming insists that everything humans do just makes the world
worse, Central Park is a shining statement that says we make it better.
Every Warmunist ad is a parable about the evil of humans who chop down forests,
pour oil into the oceans and refuse to put things into clearly marked recycling
containers. Central Park opens up the natural world to human activities. The
ideas of Olmsted about good citizenship and the natural world did not involve
teaching people to leave the natural world alone, but to make it a part of our
today sneer at this attitude. They clamor against hunting and fishing. They
agitate to restrict human access to national parks. They push Zero Population
Growth and mandatory birth control. Their "Green", like that of the
Islamic Green, burns with hate for the Red, White and Blue. For human
Much of the public thinks environmentalism is a good idea, because they think
it's ultimately meant to benefit them. Environmentalism however is an ideology
that champions the Supremacy of Nature, better known as the ecosystem covering
the surface of the Earth, over man. Where Conservationism believed in the
Supremacy of Man, and the utilization of the natural environment for mankind's
benefit, the environmentalist doesn't give a damn about mankind's benefit. Less
so than he does about an endangered mollusk.
Walking through the blizzard, the trees wreathed in bridal veils of snow, I
heard their voices in the distance, a distance that in the whiteness may have
been only a dozen feet away. "The scientists say Global Warming is
coming", the mother said. "It's too cold out for that," answered
the little girl.
I wish to thank Daniel Greenfield
is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of
the David Horowitz Freedom Center for allowing me to publish his work.