Reason as the Leading Motive

Archive for the ‘Environmentalism’ Category

The Unchanging Constant in Climate Change

Posted by Jerry on March 12, 2008

My readers in India know that we have had one of the coldest winters in several decades. In fact, Mumbai–which a city known to have only two seasons: summer and monsoon–experienced record low temperatures over the past few months. People in the city felt as if they were teleported to some arctic locale, being completely ill-prepared for the weather and having no warm clothes.

Apparently, the Indian subcontinental peninsula was not the only region to experience an abberrant drop in temperatures. According to this article in the DailyTech:

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.

The article goes on to say that the total amount of global cooling only this past year has been larger than the entire range of warm temperatures recorded in the past one hundred years. Note that this data suggests that the range of cooling that has occurred in this past year comes at the height of our industrial activity and population numbers.

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

So, is it time to return to the global cooling hysteria of the 1970s? Whatever the new fluctuating trend in global climate change, this one thing remains an unchanging constant–the environmentalists’ predilection for fear-mongering and human hatred.

[HT: Al-Kafir Akbar]

Posted in Culture, Environmentalism, Political Issues, Rights and Morality, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Weather Today

Posted by Jerry on January 15, 2008

Metereologist and founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, has this to say about global weather:

image[Global warming] is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

[HT: John Stossel’s article in The Atlasphere.]

Posted in Culture, Environmentalism, Favorite Quotes, On Collectivism, Political Issues, Religion, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Lights Out

Posted by Jerry on January 4, 2008

The latest post on Gus Van Horn has so many sharp insights that I wanted to excerpt his entire post on my blog! It’s that good. But I won’t do that, of course, because I want you to go to his site and read it for yourself. His post begins by quoting Objectivist Burgess Laughlin’s “astute connection” of the different forms of totalitarianism. It’s brilliant:

There are many forms of totalitarianism, including: Communism, Socialism, National Socialism, Nationalism, Monarchism, Theocracy, Fascism, and Democracy.

By the latter I mean a dictatorship by the majority. Democracy is totalitarian in a special way, a way that distinguishes it from other forms: Democracy, at least superficially, allows vacuoles of freedom of choice while controlling the broad, context-setting conditions.

I see different species of Democracy. The one we are witnessing mostly now is what I would call Parentalism. All forms of dictatorship call for and require sacrifice of some individuals for the sake of others (the poor, the race, God, the fatherland, the proletariat, and so forth).

A distinguishing characteristic of Parentalist Democracy is that it also appeals to self-interest, in the same manner that a parent would say to a child: “This is for your own good.” We tax you in order to subsidize science that will benefit you in the future.

Countering this Parentalism is very difficult for a variety of reasons. One is that it does superficially appeal to supposed self-interest. After all, every family has to make rules to keep the family functional, doesn’t it? [bold added]

Launching off of this metaphor of paternalism as one form of democracy, Gus analyzes the recent success of the environmentalist campaign in the United States to ban the incandescent light bulb — or, as Paul Hsieh rightly said, “the long-time symbol of reason and thought.”

The modern Dark Ages may well begin in the country that gave the world its first light bulb.

Posted in Culture, Economics, Environmentalism, General Work/Life, Objectivism, Philosophy, Political Issues, The Best of Leitmotif, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Corrupt IPCC

Posted by Jerry on October 26, 2007

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.


I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.
Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition.

The two main “scientific” claims of the IPCC are the claim that “the globe is warming” and “Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible”. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

Read the entire article carried by Capitalism Magazine. Related post: Green is For Danger

Posted in Culture, Environmentalism, General Work/Life, Political Issues, The Best of Leitmotif, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Green is For Danger

Posted by Jerry on October 26, 2007

From Galileo Blogs on Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth:

  • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age. The Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

The modern environmentalist movement is just a bunch of reds who have dyed their stripes green.

Exploit the Earth or DieHere’s more from elsewhere:

Junk Science: The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge — $125,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming.

TCS Daily: Gore Dodges Calls to Debate

“Gore’s reluctance to go toe-to-toe with global warming skeptics may have something to do with the – from the standpoint of climate change alarmists – unfortunate outcome of a global warming debate in New York last March. In the debate, a team of global warming skeptics composed of MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, University of London emeritus professor of biogeology Philip Stott, and physician-turned novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton handily defeated a team of climate alarmists headed by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. Before the start of the nearly two-hour debate, the audience of several thousand polled 57.3 percent to 29.9 percent in favor of the proposition that global warming is a “crisis.” At the end of the debate, the numbers had changed dramatically, with 46.2 percent favoring the skeptical point of view and 42.2 percent siding with the alarmists.”

Australian Financial Review (PDF paper):

One of the more vocal local dissidents is Bob Carter, a research professor and former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Townsville. He says that there is no established theory of climate as there is, say, of gravity and planentary motion, which can be used to make predictions.

“We have a hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide increase temperatures, but that hypothesis fails all tests. Global average temperatures are known to have varied little since 1997 – just moving up and down – but in that same period carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 15 parts per million or 4 per cent.”

Stewart Franks, an associate professor in hydroclimatogy at the University of Newcastle, says the alarm over climate has grown sharply in the past 10 years, “but in that time temperatures have been stable, so it’s a case of never mind the evidence”.

Global Warming Hoax: A constant monitoring of all climate-change related news

Science Magazine:

Lowell Stott,1* Axel Timmermann,2 Robert Thunell3

1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA.
2 International Pacific Research Center (IPRC), School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

“We determined the chronology of high- and low-latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by radiocarbon dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and magnesium/calcium records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ~2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming.”

Wall Street Journal: Global Warming Delusions

“Global warming doesn’t matter except to the extent that it will affect life — ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.

You might think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worked on global warming, and been concerned about its effects, since 1968. I’ve developed the computer model of forest growth that has been used widely to forecast possible effects of global warming on life — I’ve used the model for that purpose myself, and to forecast likely effects on specific endangered species.

I’m not a naysayer. I’m a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,” the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.

Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. “Wolves deceive their prey, don’t they?” one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.”

Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:

“Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

While CO2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has been so slight that it has not been experimentally detected. The computer climate models upon which “human-caused global warming” is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex.”

For those Greenies who love a consensus to prove their beliefs, here’s a consensus of scientists holding the opposing, non-alarmist view:

Over 19,000 American scientists have signed a petition that states:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Posted in Culture, Environmentalism, Political Issues, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 16 Comments »

Freegan Idiots

Posted by Jerry on June 21, 2007

Gus Van Horn brings attention to a freegan stupid anti-capitalist movement in New York known as “freeganism.” Of course, as expected, its members are mostly young, socialist, hippie, vacuous potheads.

From the New York Times article on this movement: 

Almost every week, [Andrew] Weissman organizes an event commonly referred to as “dumpster diving,” where he leads an open tour among the various trash heaps and dumpsters of Manhattan to gather discarded food. The activity is part of a larger social movement known as freeganism, which views capitalism as the primary force in destroying the environment and avoids the capitalist structure through such practices as eating discarded food, squatting in abandoned buildings instead of paying rent and refusing to hold a job. Just as vegans are vegetarians who avoid animal products, freegans subsist only on free food found in the garbage as consumer waste. In Manhattan, there is plenty to go around.

[Weissman] is also unemployed, choosing to spend his free time volunteering for a variety of activism groups. The main part of his life not in accordance with traditional freegan ideals is the fact that he doesn’t squat, or live in an abandoned building, though he is quick to point out he doesn’t pay rent. Instead, he lives with and cares for his grandparents in Teaneck, N.J., where he also grew up. 

Eric Bakunin, 18 years old and a self-professed anarchist, had been dumpster diving on his own for almost two years before meeting Weissman at an anarchist rally. Weissman told him of the weekly dumpster tour and Bakunin came out for his first group dive.

As Gus Van Horn very accurately points out, the greatest irony of this whole story is that these freegan nutjobs would all starve to death or die from severe food poisoning were it not for the capitalist system of the US as opposed to dumpster diving in some non-capitalist “paradise” like Cameroon, or even India.

Posted in Culture, Environmentalism, General Work/Life, Philosophy, Political Issues, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Links on the Global Warming Cult

Posted by Jerry on May 3, 2007

The most fundamental hypothesis of the Global Warming Cult is that human-industrial CO2 emissions are the key cause of global warming. Well, would these cultists discard their beliefs if this basic premise was proved false? One would assume that if they had even an ounce of honesty and committment to scientific reason, they would at the very least examine the evidence against their claims. However, the environmentalist movement no longer has anything to do with science; it has become a full-blown religion–a cult that stifles any dissent and seeks to censor any opposition to its views regardless of its scientific merits.

See for yourself: Here are some very important and readable links to articles debunking the anthropogenic climate change theory and exposing these cultists and hypocrites for what they truly seek to achieve–the destruction of capitalism and wealthy western economies and the return to primitivism.

Civilization Watch by Orson Scott Card: A very informative article, truly important, and required reading. In particular, the last half of the article, beginning from “Global Warming vs. Climate Change,” strikes at the heart of the matter.

Scientists Claim Global Warming Debate “Irrational”: An excerpt:

Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant. Billions of taxpayers’ dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said.

“The only constant about climate is change,” said Patterson.

Patterson said money could be better spent on places like Africa. “All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa,” said Patterson. “We’re into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I’m worried we’re going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution.”

Jonah Goldberg: Turning Up the Heat on Gore: An excerpt:

As Gore makes it clear in his book, “Earth in the Balance,” he wants to change attitudes more than he wants to solve problems. Indeed, he wants to change attitudes about government as much as he wants to preach environmentalism.

Global warming is what William James called a “moral equivalent of war” that gives political officials the power to do things they could never do without a crisis.

Dr. William Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University and a world-famous hurricane expert, called Al Gore “a gross alarmist.” Here’s an excerpt:

“He’s one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he’s doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

Also, read an interview with Dr. William Gray and an article exposing the media bias in covering Dr. William Gray’s interview.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, writes that global warming alarmists have overblown a case that is most dubious at best and flatly wrong at worst. Here’s an excerpt:

[the] risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth’s surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn’t be as steep as the climb in emissions.

[HT: The Bidinotto Blog for being an impressive resource of such links]

Related posts: A Convenient Falsehood; Category “Environmentalism

Posted in Environmentalism, Political Issues, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A Convenient Falsehood

Posted by Jerry on April 29, 2007

Last night, I watched Al Gore’s emotional-environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Gore makes an emotionally powerful case via his many visual media–footage of natural disasters, calamities, melting glaciers, breaking ice sheets, slick slideshows of graphs and diagrams, etc.

One of the premises of the movie is that the Earth is currently undergoing a warming phase; fair enough and true, and no one disputes this matter of fact. However, Gore makes an additional claim–and he couches it in strongly moral and ethical terms–that the global warming phase is being driven by human activity and human CO2 emissions.  

This most fundamental premise of global warming–that higher carbon emissions are resulting in increases in temperature–is in fact false! The scientific data demonstrate that it is the other way around–increases in temperature have historically resulted in increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere and this trend continues even today. In fact, a change in temperature is followed by changes in carbon emissions with a lag of over hundreds of years.

Thus, the available scientific data–from ice core surveys, satellites, temperature balloons, etc.–show that CO2 does not drive changes in temperature but that changes in temperature is followed by varying levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Al Gore offers very little by way of science in his documentary–and even the little that he offers is shoddy, misinterpreted science and misrepresented graphs. If you’re interested in learning about the real science behind the fact of climate change, then this documentary video entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is the one to watch. Unlike Gore’s version, this video has a long list of eminent scientists, meterologists, and climatologists–not ex-vice presidents–giving you cold facts devoid of evocative photographs or other visuals. These scientists–including some of the lead authors of the IPCC report on climate change and the co-founder of Greenpeace–do not mince words when they conclusively state that the “facts do not fit the [anthropogenic climate change] theory.

Seriously, if you have watched An Inconvenient Truth, then you really need to get a dose of hard facts and reality by watching The Great Global Warming Swindle. If you have already watched it once, then watch it again like I did!

On a related note, there is good reason to argue that the whole climate change issue became so politicized due to the interference of government and tax money in scientific research. The government, properly, has no business deciding to spend upwards of 2 billion dollars a year (like the US did) of tax payer money on global warming science–or any other scientific project, for that matter.

Nevertheless, all the money now being legislated by governments and being spent by entities as a result of this false theory of anthropogenic climate change could actually be put to good use where it is needed most urgently.

We should not be spending such huge amounts of public money on researching the technology of hybrid/green vehicles or reducing the emissions of coal industries; rather, finances should be poured into rebuilding and fortifying cities like New Orleans, New York, and Amsterdam to withstand and resist the climatary manifestations of rising temperatures, such as hurricanes and tornadoes.

We should, for example, be focused on increasing competitive technologies in air-cooling systems to reduce the prices of airconditioners in order that more people across the world (particularly those living in the equatorial regions of Africa) can afford to purchase these potentially life-saving products. People in the hottest regions of the world would be better off being able to afford cheap and efficient air-cooling systems than planting more trees.

Most importantly, we should urgently and immediately insist on capitalism and free markets across all economies in order to expedite the creation of wealth across the globe and raise everyone’s standard of living to be able to afford decent shelter from the rising temperature and other climatary changes. 

This is the way to save human lives the rational, scientific, and humanitarian way; not by chasing some fabricated fantasy theory of industrial carbon emissions in the atmosphere.

Posted in Environmentalism, Movies, My Theories and Ideas, Political Issues, The Best of Leitmotif, Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

Smokestacks on Zee Mooon!

Posted by Jerry on April 23, 2007

Being that yesterday, April 22, was Earth Day, I came across this funny tidbit on Ayn Rand appearing on a TV show to speak about Earth Day sometime in the 1970s. I cannot vouch for the truth of this episode, or of Rand’s message on that day, but Charles Petzold seems to remember the incident as such:

Seeing Ayn Rand speak on the subject of Earth Day was, however, unforgettable. She indicated how pollution was the sign of a healthy industrical economy, and how Earth Day was a threat to capitalism because it wanted to remove those belching smokestacks from the landscape of American free enterprise. Most memorable was her concluding sentence, which she sounded out proudly in a glorious Russian accent that still haunts my nightmares:

    Vee vill build smokestacks to zee moon!

Could that have been it? Surely Ms. Rand would have then moderated her views by noting how foolish it was to ruthlessly exploit the very planet that supports this economy, and how this economy might someday suffer as a result.

🙂 I can almost hear Rand saying something like the above–so radically opposed to common sense and mainstream thought–in her thick but endearing Russian accent.

Surely, smokestacks on the moon wouldn’t be a bad idea if we can find a way to set up all our polluting industries up there and beam (or transmit) the power and other resources generated from the moon back to the Earth in some manner; that way we’d have a green Earth, global cooling, happy environmentalists, and plenty of energy! Indeed, a brilliant idea, no?

 I don’t see any valid reason for environmentalists to cry foul on this idea: note, there aint’ no green vegetation or trees or animals living in their “natural habitat”–or even any humans–on the moon to be adversely affected by the pollution. It’s just an empty, vast, brutal wasteland; a giant piece of rock. Are we saying that this giant piece of rock is in itself intrinsically valuable now?

Posted in Ayn Rand, Environmentalism, Favorite Quotes, General Work/Life, My Theories and Ideas, Personal | 7 Comments »

Planet Earth, right?

Posted by Jerry on April 14, 2007

Encountering the steady pace of news reports that reveal yet another “piece of evidence” or effect of global warming, I am simply astounded at how widely–almost unanimously–the anthropogenic view has been taken for granted, as if the matter is closed and beyond any doubt.

It truly confounds me, and I wonder if people like them and people like me are even living or talking about the same planet!

For example, note what this article states–and notice even more what it fails to mention:

New York City produces nearly 1 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to a city study.

Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and other gases, essentially trap energy from the sun, which warms the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. Many scientists believe human activity that increases those gases is contributing to global warming.

The above quote cites carbon dioxide as the first example of a type of greenhouse gas, followed by “methane and other gases.” There is simply no mention of water vapor, which is by far the largest constituent element of greenhouse gases!

Wikipedia–the cesspool of the sloppy, the inane, and the arbitrary–gives varying numbers of the percentage of water vapor in greenhouse gases: at one place it states that water vapor constitutes upto 70% of GNG, while at another place, the figure is marked up to 90%.

Of course, Wikipedia has virtually zero credibility when to comes to documenting contentious or political issues that become so agenda-driven, to the point where arriving at truths based on facts become close to impossible–facts are obscured, distorted, contorted by all sorts of motivating agendas, and bias minds absorb self-fulfilling beliefs as “true,” thus reducing the overall chance of really knowing anything at all, and disputed articles on the Wikipedia reach a stinking stalemate with the cautionary albeit perfunctory note attached: “The accuracy of this article is disputed.”

Nonetheless, getting back to my original point, as I read these news reports and other articles on global climate change, I am simply left to wonder how can so many people get it wrong!? Can we ever know what is fact anymore? Are we even talking about the same planet here? It seems like the most straightforward kind of a question that would have the most direct and factual answer–is this huge piece of rock hotter today or not and what is driving its changes (if any) in temperature? This whole affair has reached bizarre heights of deliberate obscurantism! Can’t we just stick a thermometer and measure the temperature!? It’s a numerical reading we seek; how lost can we get?!

Posted in Environmentalism, General Work/Life, My Theories and Ideas, Personal, Political Issues | Leave a Comment »

Anthropomorphic Earth

Posted by Jerry on April 8, 2007

After a long and invigorating session of swimming in the puddle that I now frequent, I rested at a nearby fastfood restaurant, chowing down some light snacks and fresh fruit juice.

And like in all moments when I am alone, I began thinking about matters that bother me–issues that I may not have resolved or clarified for myself well enough yet; things that I am either not confident about or not comfortable with my current position on it; or matters that simply need more thinking.

This time, I was thinking about global climate change and the various issues pertaining to it. Something about it suddenly struck me: it appears as if environmentalists (and the stone-cold hippies that tag along) are rather selective in what they would like to protect and preserve and what they simply give no attention to. And more importantly, the manner in which they demand environmental protection or preservation is as if to say that if the Earth could speak, this is exactly what it would demand also!

For instance, many greenies like protecting trees, lush forests, tropical and/or rainforest regions. It’s as if Earth has a selective preference bias for these regions over the deserts of the Kalahari or Sahara, or the cold deserts of Siberia. Granted one could argue that not much of human activity–specifically, of the “destructive” industrial kind–occur in the desert regions of Sahara or Siberia; nevertheless, it seems to me that the fundamental driving force is not of protecting natural landscapes per se as much as it is about doggedly pursuing human industrialization activities and posing as roadblocks along that process. In other words, the movement is not really pro-Earth as much as it is anti-human!

I am very inclined to believe that there is a greater sentiment of disgust and hatred for industrialization than there is love for natural beauty and pristine panoramas that is behind the environmental movement. Of course, these are generalizations, and there might be some honest persons concerned about the environmental impact of human activity; however, the most vocal and militant of the greenies surely fit my description.

My own view of the matter is, of course, I am against any wanton destruction of natural settings, habitats, and resources, just as I would be against the wanton looting and plundering of my own home by, say, my roommate. However, at all times, I hold that the progress of human civilization, the advancement of technology, and the enhancement of individual and private comforts should trump any environmental cause.

The only reason we would wish to protect this Earth is to be able to continue to thrive and flourish and enjoy life on this Earth; there should be no other non-human centric reason to protect this Earth. Fundamentally, the Earth is nothing more than a really huge piece of rock–and other stuff; and any further importance ascribed to it is solely because of the existence of conscious and conceptual human beings who are capable of deeming things as important or of value.

Once your ideological stance is antagonistic towards the very entities who are the source and standard of values, i.e., against human civilization which is the only reason this Earth is deemed valuable, then you have lost your case and your legitimate claim to values.

Posted in Environmentalism, General Work/Life, My Theories and Ideas, Personal, Political Issues | 3 Comments »

The Global Warming Swindle

Posted by Jerry on March 23, 2007

If you have ever made or believed in the claim that global warming is caused by human actions–by our industrial and vehicular emissions, then you MUST watch this documentary. Indeed, it would only be honest for you to do so. 

The Great Global Warming Swindle

[If the video below does not work, click here to watch it on google video.]

Al Gore has been challenged to an internationally televised debate on global warming:

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous”, to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing. Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.

Given at Carie, Rannoch, in the County of Perth, in the Kingdom of Scotland, this 14th Day of March in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand And Seven. God Bless America! God Save The Queen!

In an essay in “Return to the Primitive,” Ayn Rand cites the issue of environmentalism as the leftists’ new movement following the failure of their collectivist and socialist ideology. These observations were made by Rand more than four decades ago, based on the trends she noticed at the time.

P.S.: Thus far, I have made no public comments on global warming or other environmental issues (as evidenced by my silence on this matter on my blog) simply because I had no clear grasp of the issue, I did not have adequate evidence or arguments from all sides, nor was I particularly interested in thinking about matters of this nature. My sole guiding principle was–and still is–to favor ideas, policies, laws, and practices that promote and advocate individual human advancement, achievement, and living condition on this Earth by all means possible.

I do not view the Earth as instrinsically valuable (as some supernatural deity or some anthropomorphic entity) without any regard for the betterment of the valuer (human beings). The Earth shall be protected by human activities only as a secondary consequence of the human motive for survival, production, and flourishment. Insofar as humans choose to live, produce, advance, and progress, the Earth will be taken care of secondarily. Let men live freely on this Earth, and the Earth will be taken care of.

Posted in Environmentalism, General Work/Life, Movies, The Best of Leitmotif | 5 Comments »

Response to Singer

Posted by Jerry on July 28, 2005

The workings of my mind:

Here’s the skeletal form of my response to Peter Singer’s argumentation on the ethic of meat-eating.

The crux of the issue: to eat or not to eat meat
Why? Because animals have life, and therefore feel pain, and therefore suffer, and therefore if we don’t eat human babies, why do we eat animals?
Living creatures have consciousness and experience pain and suffering. Plants? Do they have consciousness?
Animals have life. Life is a value. Life gives rise to Rights. Animals have rights. Right to life. Right to LIVE and not be eaten.
What is the meaning of “Rights”? How does it really come about? What are the necessary requirements to possess “Rights”?
If animals have Rights, then babies have Rights. Then a fetus has rights?
Origin of Rights: Concept “RIGHTS” is squarely connected with the concept “MORALITY”
To violate Rights means to be immoral, or evil. To kill a human baby (assuming it has RIGHTS) means to be evil. To kill a fetus, similarly, is to be immoral. To kill an animal and eat it, is also immoral. Yes?
What is “MORAL”?
Morality is choosing of deliberate action.
Choose right over wrong is choosing moral over immoral
Choosing to live is moral because it is right. Life is a universal standard of value. Without that standard of life, we are talking about death, or non-existence- then this whole conversation is useless because we value death and non-existence, so why talk about any reason to protect life? Rights are tools and requirements to protect LIFE not death.
Thus, rights give rise to morality, which is based on life as a value.
Any life? Plant life?
No. It cannot be plant life or animal life because morality is ONLY concerned with the life of VIOLITIONAL beings that can CHOOSE to have Rights that protect and enhance life.
Animals and Plants don’t and cannot CHOOSE to protect or enhance life. For them, it is instinctual and automatic. Plants and animals cannot commit suicide or choose to starve to death. Thus, there is no talk about morality in terms of their actions because morality requires the deliberate act of choice in the face of alternatives.
Animals hunt and kill one another, but we cannot consider their actions under moral lenses. Those acts are instinctually natural.
Thus, morality is only in the realm of HUMAN life.
Thus, only HUMAN life, Human consciousness, is the standard of our moral values and virtues. Not any life, just Human life.
Morality is in choosing the right. Immoral is in choosing the wrong. Amoral is in not having the faculty, capacity and the options to choose.
Thus, eating animals is not violating any “RIGHTS” of animals because they cannot have “Rights” that protect their moral choices based on a universal standard value. Animals, by their nature are neither moral nor immoral, but amoral, and therefore cannot have the concept of “Rights” because they do not have the concept of “violation of Rights” i.e. committing a wrong or immoral act against another animal.
What about babies and fetuses?
Babies – independent entities (in the sense that they are a self-contained unit) that belong to the species of Humankind, and Humankind is the only species that are concerned with Rights and Morals.
Babies are Humans equipped with all the faculties necessary for a rationality and intellectual consciousness. The extension of Rights to Humans should then appropriately cover newborn Humans, because they are here and now, existing as their own self-contained entity with the potential to achieve rational consciousness.
Fetuses – develop this more… talk about essential definitions and differences. Fetuses are excluded from the coverage of Human Rights and protection. Why?

Posted in Animal Rights, Environmentalism, My Theories and Ideas, Rights and Morality | 3 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: