Conservation and Eugenics - The environmental movement's dirty secret

Excerpt reproduced with permission

by Charles Wohlforth

THE RAIN HAD JUST STOPPED in the little eastern Kansas town of Osawatomie when thirty thousand people, gathered in an atmosphere not unlike that of a country fair, fell quiet. Their hero, former president Teddy Roosevelt, climbed atop a kitchen table and began to speak in a high, almost falsetto voice, orating amid cheering for ninety minutes. When finished, he had delivered the most controversial and influential address of his career, in which he described a radical new program that was both denounced and celebrated in newspapers across the country. The date was August 31, 1910.

The New Nationalism Speech, as it came to be known, emphasized conservation, as did most of Roosevelt’s speeches written by his friend Gifford Pinchot, who had been his conservation chief for the two terms of his presidency. But it also newly placed the “moral issue” and “patriotic duty” of conservation into the context of a racial conversation, as well as a much broadened concept of progressivism.

Read the rest at Orion

FoxNews Misses Three Critical Points

While perusing FoxNews' website, I ran across this article: Scientist: Arctic Ocean to Be Ice-Free in Summer. While reading further, the article mentions the group that conducted this "survey" was the Catlin Arctic Survey. However, the article misses three critical points:

1 - The Catlin Arctic Survey was the group that fought for their survival when a group from the environmentalist organization attempted an expedition to  the North Pole.

2 - The Catlin Arctic Survey was funded by the notorious World Wildlife Fund.

3 - The timing.

The World Wildlife Fund was the organization that aired a misleading commercial that linked global warming to the decline of the polar bear population about a year ago, among other false "reports." As of today the commercial is no longer on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMLJD-mantE).

As to the timing aspect of this "survey", FoxNews failed to elaborate a bit more that this "report" is hot on the heels of the upcoming Copenhagen Conference. The article also fails to mention that WWF is turning up the heat by stirring the hysteria pot.

From their site:

Fresh Arctic evidence for climate summit

Posted by Dominic Hilton

Wednesday, 12 Aug 2009

Scientists are busy analysing data from the Catlin Arctic Survey. The data will provide important new evidence for the crucial climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

The Catlin Arctic Survey team returned this May with unique new measurements of the thickness and extent of sea ice in the Arctic. The University of Cambridge’s Polar Oceans Physics Group is currently analysing the data, with initial results already suggesting that the sea ice is newer and thinner (and therefore more liable to melt) than expected. The results will help climate scientists around the world to understand how quickly the dwindling summer sea ice will melt and to predict more accurately the effect this will have on the global climate.

WWF are providing funding to help the research team speed up their analysis. It’s crucial that the results are available in time for the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen, as they will strengthen WWF’s calls for a strong global climate deal. Governments must take action urgently to keep global temperature rise below 2°C, the threshold beyond which most scientists predict climate change could become catastrophic.

“Climate change is happening now and nowhere is it more evident than in the Arctic,” said WWF’s head of climate change, Keith Allott.

“Sea ice is a critical part of Earth’s climate system and the loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is happening decades ahead of most predictions. We cannot predict all of the effects of this ice loss, but scientists foresee severe disruption to the natural world on both a local and a global scale.”

Is this what someone, with a rational mind, would call science?

Author's note: I checked the page where the above statement was made at 10:40 AM PST and the page could not be located. I had to dig into my archives from August of this year to quote the statement above. If someone manages to locate it on their website, please contact me with the details.

On Scientific Consensus and Climate Models

In my previous article, we left off with liberalism and ideology in regards to environmentalism. You will recall that ideology trumps facts and thus rendering opposing points of view meaningless. These groups that push an ideological agenda will always ignore the facts and marginalize anyone that should not fall into lockstep with their beliefs.

We left off with the “scientific consensus” and the computer climate model fallacy and it’s where we will continue.

What is consensus? Merriam-Webster defines it as “a general agreement, or unanimity”. It can also be defined as “group solidarity”, depending how one uses the word. Does this sound like a word that should be used in the world of science? After all, many scientists do come to a general agreement on many topics and subjects; however, they always leave room to change that general agreement should any new evidence be discovered.

All it takes is one person to change it, that one eureka moment.

What is science? Again, we go to that reliable place called Merriam-Webster and we see several definitions. The definition we are most interested in is this:

Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

Revisiting our initial question, we begin to see the flaw in “scientific consensus”. How can a group seek knowledge covering general truths occur if that group relies on consensus when doing so? They can’t. The definitions of consensus and science, by their very nature, negate each other if used together.

Science demands that evidence be verifiable and results be reproducible in the real world, not twenty, fifty or even a hundred years in the future. Yet, we always hear that scientists are in a consensus because computer climate models are predicting world wide catastrophe decades in the future. If evidence can’t be verified and results from said evidence can’t be reproduced with the methodology being used, then predictions are meaningless.

Computers can do wonderful things that assist us in making our day to day lives easier; what they are not is crystal balls. It is a tool, not unlike a mechanic’s wrench or a surgeon’s scalpel and if used incorrectly computers can produce false data or a scalpel can cause irreparable damage. How a scientist (what I refer to as modern day Nostrodomus’s) uses the climate modeling software determines what the results will be. If worst case scenarios are placed in the software, then it’s rather obvious that worst case scenarios will be the result. What one has to understand is that computer climate models are only one part of method, they should not be relied upon by themselves for results.

When these dire predictions fall on the ears of the uninformed, they paint a picture of doom and gloom. When the uninformed make an attempt to get more information, they are bombarded with more doom and gloom from environmental extremists that feed off it. Trying to convince the uninformed turned radical becomes more and more difficult.

On Liberalism and Ideology

Has anyone ever noticed that liberals who assert that they are the people of tolerance, open mindedness and being non judgmental, are probably the most hateful, close minded and judgmental people in the world?

Particularly when it comes to particular issues like climate change and global warming.

Ask any so-called environmentalist what ENSO is or if they have looked at the latest data concerning the current PDO. Chances are very likely that you will get a response of silence, or a sneer and an expletive or two; you may get an occasional response that is half way coherent. Yet, by and large many of these tolerant, open minded and non judgmental environmentalists don’t take the time and make an attempt to get a basic understanding of the science behind it.

Now, why is that?

There are several reason, ideology probably being the most prevalent. When a person or group has an agenda that’s based on ideology nothing else matters, least of all facts and opposing points of view. Take the scientific consensus argument that environmentalists use as “proof” that the modern human industrial population is the root cause behind climate change and global warming. The very idea, to someone with an ideological agenda, is the foundation of their argument. When presented to someone that has an understanding of how science works, making such an assertion is tantamount to scientific heresy.

Anyone, with a modicum of rationality, knows that there is no place for consensus in the scientific community; if there were then there would be no progress or eureka moments. Indeed, progress and advancement would likely never be achieved; technological advancement and innovation would cease to exist. Instead of the hunting rifle we use the club. As Michael Crichton said, “Consensus is the business of politics…”

When someone attempts to voice an opposing point of view to an environmentalist, they are often met with derision, scorn and vitriolic comments. This is due primarily to the fact that environmentalists can’t respond in any intelligent manner, thus rendering any debate useless. Oh, and they almost always end their derisive comments with “scientific consensus”.

With this “eco-fascism”, it should come as no surprise that anthropogenic climate change/global warming has stumbled into the political arena. So much so, that it as a major player in the current political stump speeches; though it has seemed to have lost its network glitz recently.  What’s particularly scary is that made up issues, like this one, has the propensity to alter economic decisions that may prove disastrous in years to come. Yet, none of these people will ever likely be held accountable for their actions; hind sight may be 20-20, but to a politician it’s almost always myopic (Just look at the current financial mess, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. Two people inextricably linked to it, yet neither will ever be held to account for it).



Now we have these politicians trying to pass legislation to “reduce” greenhouse gas emissions to some amount by some future date. What are the odds that these politicians have crystal balls in their offices? Well, if you think about, they do and they are called “scientists” that use “computer climate models”. This is yet another fallacy that is at the heart of the liberal environmentalist’s ideology and it’s also completely misunderstood and abused. Coupled with “scientific consensus”, it is proof positive that we are the cause of climate change and we better change our ways or we are doomed.

The Sierra Club Exposed

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

David Brower – First Executive Director, Sierra Club

John Muir founded The Sierra Club to “Make the mountains glad” in 1892 and is probably the most powerful environmental group in the nation. Originally founded to better the future enjoyment of the wilderness, it has become more radical by promoting anti-growth, anti-technology and espousing populationism. Their priorities now are best illustrated by the animal rights activist and extremist, Paul Watson who was elected to the Sierra Club’s board of directors in 2003.

If you don’t know who Paul Watson is, then a brief history is in order. Paul Watson was a co-founder of Greenpeace and founded the ultra-radical Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in 1977 after being ousted from the former, for condoning violence in the name of the environment. He quoted to Access Energy in 1982, “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds”. Watson and his merry band of sea pirates sail the high seas, harassing and sinking fishing boats and endangering people’s lives.

In 2003, he announced that he was overtly “advocating the takeover of the Sierra Club,” claiming to be 3 votes shy of controlling a majority of the 15 member board. When the 2004 election season came around, he made allies with candidates endorsing strict limits to legal immigration. Even though he made promises of using the club’s revenue to address both immigration policy and animal-rights issues, he lost in a record turnout. Despite the loss, he remained on the board until 2006.

“A vegetarian lifestyle as a way to counter the alleged abuse animals endure to feed a hungry and growing global population.”

Broward Sierra News 2002

The American people are a technologically linear progressive society; meaning that we are always striving to invent and reward those with innovative ideas, not punish them. The Sierra Club, on the other hand, despises this and goes out of their way to stymie technological innovation, such as biotechnology. They are a well coordinated group, which pushes the animal rights agenda through campaigns against, what it labels as, “the growing menace” of modern farms.

Florida, 2002. A Case study


Sierra Club extremists endorsed PETA’s logo that eating meat is animal abuse and is what’s contributing to world hunger. It was at this time that the Broward Sierra News championed the quotation above and used PETA and their message that meat eating and livestock farms, in particular, are what’s causing world hunger and animal abuse. Meanwhile, the New York and Michigan Sierra Club chapters promoted  and distributed their “Vegetarian Starter Kit”, by the deliberately misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which is a well known PETA front group. These two groups also encouraged people to sign the “VegPledge” campaign sponsored by EarthSave International, as a way to “save the earth” by going vegetarian. During this time, the New York group cosponsored the “Behind Closed Doors” event with the People for Animal Rights, with the sole purpose of vilifying livestock farms and featuring none other than Gene Bauston of Farm Sanctuary.

Legal Muscle Worthy of Al Capone

As you can see, the Sierra Club, as well as PETA are well funded and well coordinated. They are also well funded on the legal front. The Sierra Club has a long “hit list” of farms that they have targeted for legal action and in the May 2000 issue of their periodical, Sierra, they announced thier intentions to sue large livestock farms from coast to coast. “No one court case will be a magic bullet … You have to fight on multiple legal fronts.” On February 28, 2001, The Club allied itself with the ultra radical Waterkeeper Alliance’s trial lawyer, Robert Kennedy Jr., as a “full partner in litigation” against pork companies. On the very same day, The Club announced that it had filed lawsuits targeting Smithfield Farms across the nation, one of the lawsuits alleged that they were involved in “mafia-style racketeering”, which was summarily bounced out of court.

This has become The Club’s primary tactic by suing farms, such as construction of multiple dairy farms between 1998-2003, because it’s cheap and bogs down those farms in litigation.

The Sierra Legal Defense Fund was founded in 1971 as a non profit law firm to act as a legal arm for its self proclaimed “grassroots”, mafia style tactics. In 1998, the name was changed to EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund or just EarthJustice, who’s sole purpose is to bully, threaten and intimidate businesses and public agencies through frivalous lawsuits. And the military isn’t even immune to the terrorist style tactics of The Club, when it filed a lawsuit in 2004 against the Marines to stop a training exercise on Makua Valley, Hawaii, citing “concern” for supposed endangered species habitats. A response was issued to EarthJustice’s bullying tactics, “To win the war against terrorism and get ready for future battles, the U.S. military must be prepared. The conduct of realistic live-fire training in Makua is part of that preparation.” Four years prior to that, EarthJustice made an attempt to stop the military from training on a small, uninhabited island called, Farallon de Medinilla, citing concern for migratory birds.

“If I knew I had a fatal disease, I would definitely do something like strap dynamite to myself and take out Grand Canyon Dam, or maybe the Maxxam Building in Los Angeles after it’s closed up for the night.”

Darryl Cherney, Earth First!

Profiteering Through Lawsuits

In 1986, California voters approved Proposition 65, which was coauthored by the current Sierra Club executive director, Carl Pope. Proposition 65 “Requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By providing this information, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about protecting themselves from exposure to these chemicals. Proposition 65 also prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into sources of drinking water.”

What many don’t know is that prop 65 contains a “bounty hunter” clause that encourages trial lawyers to file frivalous lawsuits and cash in on any product that contains a “carcinogen”, no matter how small, that’s listed in the proposition. Violaters of prop 65 can be fined up to $2,500 per day and per violation, while the plaintiffs can make bank by collecting up to 25% of the total fines collected. The radical group, As You Sow (AYS), now get this, made a whopping $1.5 million by playing the lawsuit game between 2000-2002. The president of The Sierra Club and executive director of AYS, Larry Fahn has made hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, by suing anyone and everyone that will kowtow to their tactics.

The reprobates at AYS route their ill gotten gains from prop 65 and dispurses it to other radical groups, such as Robert Kennedy’s Waterkeeper Alliance, David Brower’s Earth Island Institute and Mike Roselle’s Rainforest Action Network and Ruckus Society.

As with many well intentioned organizations, they tend to go radical with time and The Sierra Club is no different. When it was founded, it promoted environmentalism through conservationism, however, greed almost always plays the fundemental role with radicalism. Since conservationism doesn’t have much monetary return, like the current “Go Green” slogan these days, it’s likely to get worse.

Beyond Absurd

This is what Rep. Linda Sanchez said about the California wildfires:

This has got to be in the top ten stupidest things ever uttered by a human being. Had she bothered to pull her head out her ass, she would know that eco nutjobs are preventing the clearing of underbrush and increasing the likelihood of human caused forest fires.

The below is excerpted from Michelle Malkin's site:

The GAO examined 762 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) proposals to thin forests and prevent fires during the past two years. According to the study, slightly more than half the proposals were not subject to third-party appeal. Of those proposals subject to appeal, third parties challenged 59 percent.

Appeals were filed most often by anti-logging groups, including the Sierra Club, Alliance for Wild Rockies, and Forest Conservation Council. According to the GAO, 84 interest groups filed more than 400 appeals of Forest Service proposals. The appeals delayed efforts to treat 900,000 acres of forests and cost the federal government millions of dollars to address.

Forest Service officials estimate they spend nearly half their time, and $250 million each year, preparing for the appeals and procedural challenges launched by activists.

“The report demonstrates that the appeals needlessly delay federal efforts to prevent wildfires, and if the process is not streamlined, millions of acres will be lost this summer,” said Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico).

“The American people will no longer tolerate management by wildfire,” Domenici added.

“This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last year’s [2002] horrific fire season alone,” said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-California).

“These were not only losses of forest, endangered species, and wildlife habitat, they were losses of human life and family property,” Pombo said.

I guess in a sense humans are the cause, particularly when environmental whackjobs are the very people that are causing it.