Actual Collusion with Russia that is Actually Harmful to America.

Environmental groups collude with Russia to hinder fracking.

The funny thing is that prior to the Dems Conversion to "Red-baiting" in January, no conservative could have pointed to this for fear of being accused of "McCarthyism" and the media would have written it off as "unhinged paranoia."

But now it is open for discussion.

Winning!

The War on Science.

I wondered why Patrick Moore, the co-founder of GreenPeace, had left GreenPeace.

Apparently, he cares about human beings.

Founder of Greenpeace says...

Greenpeace is crazy.

TS: If Greenpeace has become so extremist, why is it so popular?

PM: Because the environmental movement has basically become a religion, or rather a kind of hybrid between religion and political ideology. When people internalise new values, a desire to be environmentally conscious, to save the world, etc, and Greenpeace makes claims that fit this desire, then the organisation indeed must enjoy great popularity. It apparently does not matter that any reference to reality is given up. Take the example of mining. Greenpeace is against mining, not only certain mining, but any. If one asks a green politician to name a mine that is environmentally okay, you get no answer. That would be against the rule: no mining. But how do you get cellphones and bicycles and rapid transit, buildings and windmills? It is an absolute dream world. They call it idealism, but in reality it is a fairytale world.

An important aspect of this religion plays on fear and guilt. This works best when it comes to global warming. First, the problem needs to be a global one – they threaten you with the end of the world. Second, everyone is consuming energy and therefore must feel guilty. Therefore, the so-called climate-change movement is extremely successful because it means that people are scared and feel bad and guilty and believe they should give money – to the Church of Greenpeace.

And:

 

TS: What in your opinion are the biggest challenges for a conservationist?

PM: If I am asked what is the biggest environmental problem, my answer is poverty. Poor people cannot afford to clean wastewater, to clean the air, to plant new trees after cutting them down for fuel, etc. Poverty is a problem for the people and for the environment. To fight poverty helps both. There is no contradiction.

TS: Why did you leave Greenpeace?

PM: When I realised that the humanitarian philosophy had disappeared from Greenpeace, I understood that I had to leave. I wanted to shift from confrontation towards a consensus policy. If everyone agrees with you that the environment is important, you can stop beating them on the head, and sit down and talk about concrete solutions to concrete problems. And I wanted to get away from the anti-development stance towards a sustainable-development approach. When my colleagues came up with the crazy idea of banning chlorine worldwide, it was enough for me to go permanently. I said: Dear God, guys, listen up! You cannot prohibit chemical elements. Chlorine is the most important element for healthcare. I know it’s all about people, but we need chlorine. Chlorine is just so important, precisely because it is toxic – toxic to bacteria that want to kill us. We need toxic chemicals to live a healthy life. We can be against certain chlorine compounds for certain uses, but we cannot seriously demand that chlorine is banned worldwide. Because of this campaign, I finally left Greenpeace in 1986.

Bad news for statist environmentalist doomsayers.

US carbon output shrinks:

Much to the surprise (and, one suspects, the chagrin) of the deranged doomsaying wing of the environmental movement, new forecasts of US CO2 emission are out and they point to an even steeper drop than the last set of predictions.

No cap and trade, no huge new taxes on oil, no draconian driver restrictions, no air conditioning bans, no rationing — and the US is on track to cut its CO2 emissions 17 percent below the 2005 levels by 2020 — and to keep cutting our emissions levels beyond that.

And this news doesn’t come from embattled climate skeptics banished to the fringes of the scientific community; these numbers come from the Obama administration and are sitting right up on Don Lashof’s well respected blog at the National Resource Defense Council website. Take a look for yourselves.

So, to summarize, the United States of America basically blew the global greens off completely, trampling all over their carbon tax and cap and trade agendas, and earning wails and shrieks of hatred at the Rio+20 Summit — while making huge strides toward reducing CO2 emission levels.

It’s almost as if there is no connection between the green policy agenda and environmental progress.

The basic rule is to never trust any apocalyptic story told to you by an environmentalist ...

...case in point, there is no giant island of garbage the size of Texas in the Pacific.

The famous picture of the purported garbage patch is actually from Manila harbor.

Io9 reports:

MYTH: There is a giant island of solid garbage floating in the Pacific.
FACT: There are millions of small and microscopic pieces of plastic, about .4 pieces per cubic meter, floating over a roughly 2736 square km area of the Pacific. This amount has increased significantly over the past 40 years.

In reality, Goldstein said, most pieces of garbage in the Pacific are "about the size of your pinkie fingernail." Though she and her team have found some larger pieces of plastic, like buoys and tires, most are microscopic. What's alarming about them isn't their size, but the sheer amount of plastic. To figure out how much there really is, she and her team have trawled the surface of the ocean in random locations over a 2736 square km region in the gyre. Once a day, they drag a very fine, specialized net behind the boat. On one such sampling trip, she and her team found plastic pieces in 117 out of 119 random samples. On another, they found plastic in all 28 samples they took.

The fact that there is a lot of really small bits of plastic floating in the Pacific is probably not a good thing. It needs to be studied.

But that isn't the same thing as

Those who don't remember the history of scare-mongering are doomed to repeat the history of scare-mongering.



It's great that Paul Ehrlich made the list.

Hey, Environmental Fanatics.  What say we cut back on the caffeine?

"With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness."

Glorifying Eco-terrorist Violence: Whale Wars.

I've been seeing Animal Planet's "Whale Wars" ads and my basic reaction has been "W.T.F?"  It seems that the ads are depicting acts of violence, such as throwing acid at the crew of whaling boats, as heroic.  It seems to me that such conduct is nothing short of violent thuggery.

Apparently, Richard Spilman at the Huffington Post agrees:

What's not to like? The show is action on the high seas; ocean combat to save the whales! Everyone likes whales. I like whales. Who doesn't like whales? What great television for those bored with shows about fishing off Alaska, Ice Road Truckers or the Real Housewives of Duluth!


So what is the problem with "Whale Wars"? The problem is that it is cheap exploitation in praise of what is nothing less than eco-terrorism. It is the glorification of vigilantism on the high seas. And oh, by the way, the Sea Shepherds do almost nothing to protect the whales where they really do need protection.

While "Whale Wars" presents a simplistic case of us against them, the noble environmentalists against the evil whalers, the reality, of course, is not so black and white. By international agreement with the International Whaling Commission, the Japanese were allowed to kill up to a nine hundred minke whales and fifty fin whales in 2007/2008 in the Antarctic ocean for "research purposes." Critics claim that this is thinly disguised commercial whaling. Whatever it may be, minke whales, in particular, are not considered to be particularly threatened. Estimates have placed the minke population in the Southern Hemisphere in the range of 200,000-416,700 whales.

Negotiating international agreements may not make for rousing "reality TV" but it has made a significant difference in actually "saving the whales."

The Sea Shepherds on "Whale Wars" are abolitionist animal rights activists. They believe that every whale is sacred and should be preserved. On this basis, they justify aggressively interfering with and attempting to disable whaling ships in international waters, including pelting the ships with bottles containing butyric acid, which recently injured four Japanese crew members. Their zealotry is strongly reminiscent of anti-abortion extremists. (Both groups share a fondness for butyric acid attacks.) The Sea Shepherds also attempt to maneuver Zodiac boats in between the whalers and their prey. More seriously, they have taken to ramming Japanese whalers with their ship, the Steve Irwin. (They deny this but several videos of the Irwin ramming a whaler are widely available.) Members of the Sea Shepherds have also boarded whalers at sea and in one case the Sea Shepherds interfered with the search and rescue of a Japanese sailor washed overboard. (The Sea Shepherds deny they interfered but that is not the opinion of those conducting the search and rescue.)

The Sea Shepherds fly the Jolly Roger flag of piracy. I think that they should be more accurately described as eco-terrorists.

Liberal Fascism

Wintery Knight provides this video of "eco-fascist celebrities" attempting to prevent a journalist from asking embarrassing questions, but looking like jerks while doing it.