| Lessons: EcoloLies? rev. 02.17.2008 | Back to Lessons |
According to a report by the U.S. Minerals Management Service, researchers observed four dead polar bears floating 60 miles off Alaska in September 2004 and said it was likely that many other bears swimming far offshore also drowned. Scientists have concluded that the worldwide population of some 20,000 polar bears is likely to shrink by more than 30 percent in the next 35 to 50 years alone.
To ensure a future for the polar bear, NRDC joined other groups last year in a lawsuit to compel the Bush administration to protect the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. In response, the administration has agreed to open a formal review process, and is now considering whether to propose federal protections for the bear. Once these crucial safeguards are in place, the administration will be required by law to ensure that any new policy or action does not jeopardize the survival of polar bears or harm their critical habitat.
Now, I'd like to point your brains to the underlined parts...
This is what you get when zealotry takes over ecology: ecologism. When anything becomes an "-ism" all rationale goes out the door and nothing but emotion is left. Irrational desires get written into impossible-to-enforce laws. Just watch. My clairvoyant, precognitive abilities guarantee this will happen, and you can't stop it. Enjoy the ride. It will be a hoot!
From the observation [seeing] of four dead polar bears, they concluded they'd drowned and the global warming was the cause and 30% of the worldwide population would be gone within 35 to 50 years. Wow. That was one potent "observation." Note that, during the next 50 years, there will be no improvement in the population of polar bears who are better swimmers or who search for food closer to shore, or.... get it?
Um, do they mean "ensure" or "guarantee"? How do you guarantee a future for a species? Please explain. Papers are due on my desk in... take your time.. you can't.
Ah, ... and the lawsuit, if won, will compel the Administration [assuming there's a Bush still in the White House if and when the bill passes..].... You can compel the government to add a species to the Endangered Species List, but how can one government do all that might be necessary to prevent extinction? Annex parts of the world's polar regions as a game refuge? What if that's not enough, and they keep dying [the polar bears, that is... ]? What do they do next, that you can compel them to do? Reverse Global Warming? How would you draft that bill?
By now, you should be able to recognize this kind of sentence construction as that which zealots use: No specification of what the "safeguards" might be [Do they mean passing the bill? Is that a safeguard? A guarantee? Adding the polar bear to the Endangered Species List? Another guarantee?]
What kind of precognitive abilities [ability to see the future in detail, accurately] or clairvoyance [and do it at a distance, too] would it take to make this part stick? Absolutely impossible.
---The environmental "hoax" is costly
The Kyoto Treaty is just one aspect of the vast academic environmental hoax that has made meek and feeble-minded fools out of what used to be strong governmental leaders. Especially European leaders, the original planners of the Kyoto disaster. But it was not completely their fault. They were duped, like the rest of us.
Stephen Schneider of Stanford University told "Discover" magazine in 1989 that "to capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and little mentions of whatever doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
There you have it. One of the academics who started the whole environmental hoax laying it on the line. He and his cronies were willing to lie, hide the facts, exaggerate the risks, all because you and I are so simple minded that we would not understand the their arguments if they presented them to us in a logical, reasonable way.
In other words, there was very little risk to the environment, so they had to lie to make it seem as if the environment were at risk.
The fact that is there has always been insufficient evidence that the environment is at risk. The policy the academics have followed for the last twenty or thirty years or so has exaggerated the benefits of environmentalism.
Remember when the aerosol sprays, especially the underarm sprays, were causing a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica? Most aerosol sprays are gone from North America. They were never in use very much anywhere else. And yet as I am writing, the hole in the ozone layer is larger than ever. It has been, what, twenty years since aerosol sprays became an obscenity? They are gone. The ozone hole is getting bigger. Could it be something else, something in nature, that is causing the ozone hole? Could be...
While some environmentalists admit that some environmental programs are not needed, they still insist that they have "highly uncertain marginal costs."
I don't know what "marginal costs" mean to an academic, but a shortage of natural gas for heating and for fuel, a shortage of oil for the same uses, is not a "marginal cost." Nor is it very uncertain. If we do not have sufficient fuel, and have it now, we will freeze this winter and the next and the next. That is just one very obvious "marginal cost."
Other, less obvious "marginal costs" are just as serious. The money spent on unnecessary environmental programs could be spent elsewhere, such as on other science projects that could really enhance our lives. I am not only talking about de-salinization technology, but also other alternate fuel technologies that could advance much faster if the money were not being wasted elsewhere.
At some point you have to ask yourself - what is the cost of all the technological projects that have been aborted because they were "environmentally unfriendly."
How many jobs have been lost due to cost cutting made necessary by expensive pollution controls. How many jobs were lost by companies moving to foreign countries like India and China and South America and Africa where there are no pollution controls? And all because of lying academics and the political influence they were able to accumulate in the weaker minds of the West.
It's a damned shame.