Tuesday, December 13, 2011

The “green religion” versus civilization as we know it

Ivan Brezina, writing in his article “Ecologism as a Green Religion” (2004), clearly and correctly draws the distinction between what he calls the “green religion” and “scientific ecology.” Brezina is a biologist by training, so he should certainly know.

Brezina does not consider environmentalism (or, “ecologism,” as he calls it) “a rational and scientific answer to a genuine ecological crisis.” Rather, he sees it as a general rejection of “the current form of civilization.” The radical thought of “green religion” is that hidden “in the very essence of modern society” are the seeds of some impending ecological disaster, even though the “green religion” adherents have been shown repeatedly to have to lie and distort their so-called “facts” and “findings” in order to “prove” (falsely) that this is so.

Czech economist Karel Kriz also sees environmentalism as “a new religion,” when he cleverly asks: “Who was responsible for the vanishing of the glaciers from the Czech mountains? Was it, perhaps, the Urnfield people?” The implication being, of course, that the vanishing of these glaciers far predated any of the forces the environmentalists now see at work in the modern society they are determined to undermine.

Think about it: If Al Gore really believed what he claims to believe, would he be living in a home known for its massive and wasteful use of electricity or flying a private jet hither and thither to garner large honorariums for speaking?

But, what do leaders and adherents to this “green religion” really believe? Consider this quote from Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies at Stanford University, and author of The Population Bomb (1968):

“We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.” [As quoted by Christopher C. Horner in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (2007)]

They really do want to return America and the world to the scarcity, want and deprivation experienced by societies centuries ago and which innovation and hard work have striven to overcome.

See also: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_monbiot_says_the_science_now_needs_reanalyising/

No comments: