Tag: environmentalism
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Time magazine (yes, it's still being published) just named Greta Thunberg as their Person of the Year because of her efforts on behalf of fighting global climate change by…shaming people? The editors made it sound a lot nicer than I did, but it's still heaping praise on Ms. Thunberg for giving a speech, doing things that do nothing for the environment, and most likely not getting the Nobel Peace Prize for the same non-accomplishments that got her the Person of the Year award.
At only 16 years old, Greta Thunberg has taken the world by storm like the latest auto-tuned teen singing star. She's inspired millions of people (according to her followers) and sparked a global conversation on climate change while leading school walkouts to protest the world's governments' inaction on it. Although her accomplishments are rarer than the way Dracula likes his steak, the impact she's had on the world cannot be understated.
And now, she's getting her own entry into the Leftist Lexicon!
What the Left thinks it means – a young woman and future leader on climate change
What it really means – the latest useful idiot in the climate change PR machine
The prevailing thought is that we cannot attack Ms. Thunberg for any number of reasons, ranging from her being on the autism spectrum to her age and gender. I will abide by that idea because I honestly think she's being used by the very people who claim she's an inspiration to the world.
That's where the "useful idiot" part comes into play. The Soviets used that term to describe anyone unwittingly doing their bidding by supporting their ideology. In the case of climate change, the rotten apple didn't fall too far from the Soviet treeski. One of the common tactics of the eco-Left is to bring children into the conversation. "What kind of a world do you want to leave for your children and grandchildren" is still being used today as a means to guilt people into agreeing with the Left. By and large, it works. Very few adults want an ecological disaster for future generations to clean up or live through and it's been that way for decades.
Yet, none of the dire predictions of ecological disaster have occurred in the decades we've been asked to think about the children. I'm sure the Left wants to take credit for it, but little actual change has occurred in spite of the warnings that we have X number of years before it's too late. And if you've noticed, that date keeps getting pushed back every few years.
In the meantime, we get treated to Ms. Thunberg's screeds on climate change. Lucky us.
The funny thing is her use as a figurehead for the climate change movement contradicts the standards the movement itself has set. Whenever anyone who disagrees with them presents facts, the Left always disregards that person's facts because "he/she isn't a scientist." (See last week's Leftist Lexicon for more information on how the Left uses the appeal to authority fallacy.) Yet, Ms. Thunberg isn't a scientist. She hasn't even graduated high school to my knowledge. Even if she has, she's as much of a scientist as former global warming figurehead Al "I Swear I'm Not a Robot" Gore, which is to say neither one is. They can quote scientists all they want, but they will always be given the benefit of the doubt because they're saying the "right" things.
The major downside to being a Leftist darling is they typically have a short shelf life. Once the issue is played out, the Left will jettison you to the ashbin of history. The plus side? You'll have plenty of new friends. Remember Emma Gonzales? Cindy Sheehan? Chelsea/Bradley Manning? Karen McDougal? Walter Mondale? Al Franken? And, just like the old TV record offers, there are many more. If the past is prologue in Leftist circles (and by sheer volume of people in their Has-Beenville, it is), Greta Thunberg will be getting a small eco-friendly studio apartment there eventually.
The saddest part of it is it doesn't need to happen. Whether she chose the life of an activist or was talked into it by the adults in her life, Ms. Thunberg has chosen a path that is filled with hope, but winds up in despair and disillusionment because it's based on a careful series of lies that have been repeated over and over again for 50 years or so but have never been truly exposed as lies. Every effort made by actual climate scientists to self-invested individuals to show there is more than one way to crunch the data gets buried, mocked, and discounted by the Left as a means to protect the narrative.
And guess what, Ms. Thunberg? You're now a vital part in that lie. At least until another issue or another young person comes along and takes your place. At that point, your life becomes just another worn-out cog in the Left's machine.
Many of Ms. Thunberg's fans have said she's hurt fragile male egos with her actions. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case. She's free to do what she wants with her life, and I'm free to comment on how absurd it is. If I do feel anything for her, it's pity, as well as a little wistful reminiscence. It wasn't that long ago that I was just as idealistic and full of piss and vinegar as she is. When I realized the Left's manipulation of what and how I thought, I was disappointed, but I resolved to use that piss and vinegar to stick with the truth. And, if I may be so bold, the truth doesn't support your position or pseudo-solutions, Ms. Thunberg.
I pity you because you are so wrapped up in your cause that you aren't able to see an alternate perspective. Regardless of what accolades you receive now for saying and doing what people tell you is the right thing, you have limited your intellectual growth, which is always the wrong thing to do. In order to achieve anything worthwhile, we must be willing to challenge our preconceived notions and biases and accept there may be some intelligent people who simply disagree. Shaming them won't make them turn around and accept your point of view. You're 16, and you're being used by people who need you more than you need them, but that window is going to close someday.
And no Person of the Year award will keep that window open for one second more.
Author ThomasPosted on December 15, 2019 December 13, 2019 Categories Guest Author, PoliticsTags environmentalism, Greta Thunberg, Leftist Lexicon, Time Magazine
I hate to admit it, but Congresswoman-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is starting to grow on me. For someone who follows politics so you don't have to and tries to pepper his commentary with humor, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is comedy gold!
Among the various ideas she's tossed around is something called a Green New Deal, and it's gaining traction among the greener members of the Left. And, like many of the ideas she's tossed about, it has far-reaching implications…and is poorly thought out and, thus, mockable. So, let's do that, shall we?
What the Left thinks it means – a series of initiatives to address ecological and economic crises with the focus on climate change
What it really means – another attempt to grab green while attempting to go green
If the Left ever started a religion (aside from worshiping failed sociopolitical movements and, oh yeah, themselves), it might look a little like the green movement. No matter what happens, it's attributable to climate change. And don't you dare bring stuff like real science and facts into the discussion because that just won't do. We have to believe climate change is real, is getting worse, and only we can stop it.
Come to think of it, that's pretty much Leftists worshiping themselves. Anyway…
The Green New Deal has a lot of Leftist gated-community-cul-du-sac cred. First off, it's based in part on Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, a series of government programs designed to lift our failing economy during the Great Depression. Second, it combines two of the Left's favorite causes: the environment, and spending other people's money. And third, it's guaranteed to increase the size and scope of government. So, to the Left, it's a win-win-win proposition!
Now, are you expecting me to pour a glacier's worth of cold water on this idea? If you said yes, I hope you bet the over because there is a lot wrong with the Green New Deal.
First off, the New Deal wasn't that great overall. In fairness, it did cut into the unemployment rate a bit, so I will give it credit for that. The problem is it didn't solve the employment or economic problems nearly as much as we've been lead to think it did. When you look at the numbers (and I have since my social calendar is emptier than a strip club in Amish country), the New Deal moved unemployment less than a percent after several years of being introduced. Prices were still high for the time and jobs were mostly scarce, even with the New Deal's make-work programs.
So, if it wasn't the New Deal that got us out of the Great Depression, what did? A little thing the kids like to call World War II. After Pearl Harbor, our factories needed to produce goods for the war, which meant a need for people to work, and that meant more jobs to be had. FDR might get the credit from Leftists (and he does), but his programs didn't accomplish what they set out to do in any significant way. Hopefully, there isn't a world war that comes after the Green New Deal is put in place, but it might be the only way for it to succeed.
I've talked at length about the Left's green hypocrisy, so I won't go too much into it here. And if you've paid attention to federal budgeting in the past few decades, you know all about how the Left loves to spend other people's money. I will say, however, many people who push a green agenda also have another ideology behind it: some variation of socialism. That's not to say all of them are, but after seeing enough of them, I'm starting to think it's a requirement, not an aberration.
Then, there's the growth of government. Leftists love this idea because it guarantees jobs for people who wouldn't otherwise be employed and protects them from being fired for the reasons these people wouldn't otherwise be employed. I don't know all of the specifics (because not even the Green New Deal supporters have thought it out yet), but I guarantee there will be overlap with existing government programs. How can I make such a bold prediction? Because there already is overlap, and a lot of it. Take the banking industry, for example. You can count on 2 hands the number of agencies that oversee different banking functions and might even need to take off your shoes and socks these days. And they are all doing the same thing. A Green New Deal will only repeat that process, and it won't get us any cleaner. Just look at SuperFund.
While going green is an admirable goal, the Left simply can't make it work without coming up with expensive "fixes" that don't do anything or creating yet another government agency that will spend more on air travel to climate change conferences than on the actual problem of climate change. But before you think I'm just complaining without an alternative, let me roll out my Green New Deal.
Approach Elon Musk, offer him a sum of money upon completion to solve or at least mitigate the climate change problem, and let him go to work.
That idea will make Leftists' heads explode, but hear me out. The problem with the green movement is that it doesn't understand what Musk does: environmentalism isn't sexy. If you want people to become more environmentally friendly today, you have to create a demand for it. Toyota tried doing this with the Prius, and it's still limping along while others drive by in SUVs so high you need an air traffic controller whenever you go out for a drive. And a big part of that is the Prius looks like an egg. It's not attractive, but it does fulfill human need, such as being part of a group and having that group think highly of the Prius owner. But ego alone isn't enough to save the planet. What's missing is capitalism.
Musk didn't become rich and famous by settling for the mediocre. He dreamed big, risked big, and won big with the Tesla and with Space-X. We need that kind of daredevil intellect involved in what the Left considers to be the highest stakes of all with climate change, but the Left doesn't want a solution; they want a problem they can milk for money, power, and occasional guest spots on CNN and MSNBC.
The fate of the Green New Deal is up in the air right now, but if the past is prologue, we know how the story ends before it even begins. Let's try something new, a more daring approach.
Do it…for the children.
Author ThomasPosted on December 9, 2018 December 11, 2018 Categories Guest Author, PoliticsTags Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, environmentalism, green, Green New Deal, Leftist Lexicon1 Comment on Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
You might not know it yet, but we're totally going to die unless we change our energy sources. Don't believe me? Ask former Vice President Al "I'm as Much of a Scientist as Bill Nye" Gore and current House Minority Leader Nancy "I Make Pennywise Look Like a Teddy Bear" Pelosi, both of whom came out against President Donald Trump's decision to allow more offshore drilling. And we know just how much intellectual firepower they both have…
When asked for specifics on how to get the oil monkey off our country's back, the Left always bring up green energy. Wind, solar, and other energy sources are the future! Oil is the past! We need to embrace the future or else we're DOOMED, DOOMED I SAY!
Sorry. I channeled my former Leftist self there for a second.
Let's take a closer look at the green energy phenomenon, shall we?
What the Left believes it means – energy sources that are cleaner and better for our environment
What it really means – a source of money for Leftists under the illusion of protecting the environment
The self-professed "Party of Science" has a habit of using science to make it easier for them to line their pockets through a steady stream of misinformation, loaded language, and, oh yeah, ginning up more fear than Vincent Price. This toxic concoction has made actual discussion on the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of green energy hard to come by. Let me start the conversation.
Green energy is great in theory, but sucks in execution.
Your turn, Leftists.
Seriously, green energy has good intentions. When put in the simplest of terms, only the truly mad would want our natural resources to be depleted and our environment destroyed. Yes, my Leftist readers, that includes those allegedly evil corporations because if the environment gets destroyed, it tends to kill people. No people, no customers. Economics 101.
And that's one element that the Left doesn't consider when coming up with its green energy approaches. One of the problems with green energy so far is it's not economical on a large enough scale. Leftists can point to large solar farms and wind farms as evidence to the contrary, but as awesome as they are, they run into a problem: storage. On days when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, your need for power doesn't go away. Unless you have a way to store energy from sunny or windy days, you'll be more in the dark than Paris Hilton spelunking.
That's where batteries come into the picture. Granted, battery technology has come a long way in the past decade or so, but it's still a process that requires the use of chemicals that can be damaging to the environment. Hmmm…so in order for green energy to be effective, we have to use things that are…not green? Maybe it's me, but I think that defeats the purpose of green energy. But I'm sure it's just me. I mean, who would be dumb enough to support something so ignorant?
Until the battery technology catches up to the wishful thinking of the green energy movement, the Left will have to address the reality of the situation. And they do that by utterly ignoring reality. They have a lot invested in green energy, mainly because Leftists tend to be the ones running green energy companies. But since green energy isn't taking off the way the Left thinks it should, green energy companies often request (and get) federal funds to keep afloat. Then, in order to keep the funds coming in, green energy companies have to keep sucking up to Leftist politicians, which might just involve financial donations, and the cycle continues as long as Leftists keep getting into office and have access to federal funds.
Good thing that never backfires. Say, how is Solyndra doing these days?
As with global climate change, the Left is operating from a position of scientific ignorance with green energy. They keep saying oil is obsolete, but they're wrong. Biofuels, converting coal into oil, and as yet fully untapped oil reserves exist, and until we exhaust those sources, oil will have a place in the energy conversation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find alternatives, but to say green energy is the only source worth exploring is short-sighted. Besides, with people like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi pushing for green energy, I think it's a safe bet it's not nearly as good as they make it out to be.
Author ThomasPosted on January 7, 2018 Categories Guest Author, PoliticsTags Al Gore, environmentalism, green energy, Leftist Lexicon, Nancy Pelosi
Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters
As constructions resumes on the Dakota Access pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian reservation we are left to wonder about the true motives of the protesters.
Environmentalist protesters were encamped near the construction site. Claiming that the pipeline would leak and contaminate the nearby water supply. Although this is a legitimate concern, as no pipeline is leak-proof, there is an acceptable risk threshold.
The Left would have us believe that these protesters have our best interests at heart. After all the majority of the protesters at the encampment were members of the Standing Rock Indian tribe. And the Left has long supported the false narrative that the American Indian tribes all lived in harmony with nature and the surrounding land.
So this is how the protesters, protecting the water supply at Standing Rock, as environmental guardians lived and left the site.
For the most part they were all dirty and unwashed, living in a lot of filthly and 3rd world slum like conditions. They abandoned several vehicles that would contaminate the local water supply with the spring flooding. They left behind more than 200 truck loads of trash that had to be hauled away from the site. They set fires to various structures at the encampment. And these so-called environmentalists and stewards living in harmony with nature also abandoned multiple dogs and other animals, including new born puppies. Leaving them to fate in a construction zone.
Fortunately real stewards of nature are rescuing these helpless animals and cleaning up the mess left behind from these horrible human beings that were protesting the construction of the pipeline.
So what are their true motives? Well that is yet to be determined. But their very actions tells us that the stated protest reason was a lie. These horrible people obviosly don't give a damn about the environment.
Author bynwPosted on March 2, 2017 Categories PoliticsTags Dakota Access Pipeline, environmentalism, Protesters, Standing Rock
The Earth Has a Fever, and the Only Prescription Is Less Bullcrap
Happy Earth Day, kids! I'm sure you all spent the day separating your plastics from your paper, watching episodes of "Captain Planet," and watching "An Inconvenient Truth."
Naahhhhhh!
I don't have an issue with being environmentally conscious. After all, we haven't figure out a way to set up shop on Mars or the Moon yet, so we kinda have to keep our own backyard clean. However, Earth Day has become Green Kwanzaa, a made-up holiday few people actually celebrate and designed to make other people feel bad. And when it comes down to it, I care as much about Earth Day as I do about a Paris Hilton biography.
Actually, I take that back. The Paris Hilton biography is bound to be more factual.
Let's take a moment to really think about what the current environmentalist movement believes. Humanity is causing global climate problems, so we're the only ones who can fix it, unless it's too late (which is probably is, or may not be, but may soon be). Got that? I hope so because there will be a quiz later.
In the word salad posted above, you get a sense of just how absurd the current environmental movement is these days. For a movement that claims to be rooted in science and knowledge to rely on such illogic is staggering. Where logic fails, faith prevails, and the movement has become more cult-like since the 90s. If you thought Galileo went through a lot in his day in the name of science, imagine being a climate scientist who doesn't agree with the prevailing hypothesis of man-made global climate change.
But here's the twist. Science is starting to prove the environmental movement isn't being factual. Things may have changed a bit from when I was in school, but last I knew, you needed to have the facts on your side if you're going to use science. From the "pause" in global temperatures to the infamous Climategate emails to the oft-discredited "hockey stick graph" created by Michael Mann and promoted by Al Gore as factual, it's getting harder for those who believe in man-made global climate change to be credible.
But when you're making money hand over fist in a con, credibility isn't that big of a concern until it goes completely south on you. We're not there yet, but we can see the South Pole from here.
What we really need more than anything at this point is an honest debate about the climate and what effect we actually have on it. Are we causing massive hurricanes, flooding, droughts, high temperatures, low temperatures, higher than normal rainfall/snowfall, lower than normal rainfall/snowfall, and Michael Bay movies? Let's drill down and find out. Of course, that would require the environmentalist movement to be honest and willing to admit past sins, which won't happen anytime soon. Until then, let's do our own homework and learn the science necessary to defend the truth.
And stay away from Michael Bay movies, would ya?
Author ThomasPosted on April 22, 2016 Categories Guest Author, PoliticsTags Earth Day, environmentalism, Green Kwanzaa