(Editor's Note: I originally published this on 4/3/12, but all the same issues are at play today as they were then, so I'm republishing this with updates. RK)
As you read this please keep in mind that we hear over educated under smart people telling us that we are at a tipping point and we must ________(fill in the blank) right now or we will destroy all living things on the Earth. What they want us to do would put mankind back into the most primitive conditions imaginable. Here is an example of their insane thinking.
Bonnie Prince Charles has warned everyone over and over again that we've reached a critical tipping point regarding global warming, and in order to save the planet we must adopt a program that would seriously reduce mankind’s carbon emissions. He then promptly jetted off to spew the same nonsense elsewhere. That "critical tipping point" time has passed, and he keeps flying, and others as loony as he, take up the same cry. But the great leveler of truth is history and reality, and they show science has been corrupted by a pseudo-pagan green ideology.
Environmentalist in and out of the government want to abandon the Keystone pipeline because of a beetle. Not because we know it will go extinct, it's because we don’t know if it will go extinct. Please read my article, More Coprolite Anyone?
It turns out that those on my side of the argument are now, and always have been…..well..…dare I think it....dare I say it? Yes, I will say it! We were right! Oops, there it is again! Reality staring everyone in the face.
This appeared on Junkscience.com today. Shocker: Nature Conservancy chief scientist admits ‘data simply do not support the idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse’
"The eco-fragility trope of Rachel Carson and Al Gore is wrong, says an unlikely source. … The fragility trope dates back, at least, to Rachel Carson, who wrote plaintively in Silent Spring of the delicate web of life and warned that perturbing the intricate balance of nature could have disastrous consequences."
"Al Gore made a similar argument in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance. And the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment warned darkly that, while the expansion of agriculture and other forms of development have been overwhelmingly positive for the world’s poor, ecosystem degradation was simultaneously putting systems in jeopardy of collapse."
"The trouble for conservation is that the data simply do not support the idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse. Ecologists now know that the disappearance of one species does not necessarily lead to the extinction of any others, much less all others in the same ecosystem."
"In many circumstances, the demise of formerly abundant species can be inconsequential to ecosystem function. The American chestnut, once a dominant tree in eastern North America, has been extinguished by a foreign disease, yet the forest ecosystem is surprisingly unaffected. The passenger pigeon, once so abundant that its flocks darkened the sky, went extinct, along with countless other species from the Steller’s sea cow to the dodo, with no catastrophic or even measurable effects."
The fact of the matter is the only people who were sold on this stuff are those who have an agenda and the ignorant. Being ignorant is a legitimate excuse because it means that we simply don't know.
We are all ignorant about an unending number of things. Being unwilling to find out is what makes people stupid. As for those with an agenda; they aren't ignorant, they are corrupt! They have screamed in rage about everything that makes living in an advanced society possible. They claim that modern living deprives everyone of utopia, which they can deliver by forcing everyone to ‘go green'.
Yet, all they have ever delivered is dystopia - disease, squalor, misery, deprivation, suffering and early death.
That's their history! So if they keep promoting things that leave disaster in its wake, we must conclude that absolutely is their agenda! The greenies hate humanity! We really do need to get that!
We also need to get this! Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality, and reality shows us over 95% of all species that has ever lived are extinct. Extinction is the rule, not the exception. When species become biologically incompetent the cease to exist! The rest of the world goes on in spite of that.
I have asked repeatedly for someone, anyone, to tell me what terrible ecological disaster occurred when the dodo bird went extinct? There was none. I understood this and I’m just a bug man, so how did these highly educated super smart people miss it?
There is a side bar to this story that fascinates me. The very ones who insist on demanding we must spend any amount of money, and bear any and every conceivable sacrifice necessary to save every species or nature will unravel, are for the most part, neo-Darwinists. Since they believe in the blatantly ridiculous Theory of Evolution - the survival of the fittest - then shouldn’t they want incompetent species to go extinct in order for species that are better equipped to survive to take their place?
Truth and consistency of thought is a serious problem for these people. However, there is one consistency the left/green movement embrace. In order to promote all the things they promote they are required to embrace cognitive dissonance! Believing in opposing views and believing they're all correct. Views that can only be categorized as articles of faith to a neo-pseudo-pagan secular religion! Leftism! No amount of valid science, history or reality can disabuse them of their positions.
Here's reality we need to embrace! Scientific integrity has been made an oxymoron by the embrace of leftist/green ideology, in effect making them Lysenkoists. In short, the question we should be asking is this. Does ideology make smart people dumb, or insane?