The Secret of Global Warming - Posh Anti-Capitalism

Poor Al Gore.   Global warming is fast turning into a joke.  From the jolly Hockey Stick (remember that one) to the topsy-turvy ice core data (what a howler), from the laughable computer models, to the dodgy temperature records … not a single scrap of global warming garbage has escaped the blistering, excoriating scrutiny of McIntyre, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Singer, Carter & Co.  The awkward-squad army of sceptics have kicked and trampled this theory to death, not once, but a hundred times over.  

And yet, for all the onslaught of reasoned, scientific argument, the global warming beast refuses to lie down.  Like some beleagured, maniac cyborg from the future, it just goes on and on.  We all know the reason.  The edifice of global warming is built not on science, but politics.

But what kind of politics?  This is the first in a series of blog pieces to explore the green politics behind global warming .....

A BEGINNERS GUIDE TO POSH ANTI-CAPITALISM

The next time you’re forced to attend a dinner party, keep an eye out for the global warmer.  Then ask him what he thinks about supermarkets (wicked), ‘consumer society’ (soulless), world trade (cruel) and government regulation (more needed).  Global warmers are, in short, anti-capitalist.  But – and here’s the really important thing to understand – it’s a very specific form of anti-capitalism.  We might call it posh anti-capitalism.

In the old days, when there was less swearing on TV and kids were scared of policemen, anti-capitalism was coloured Red.   The Reds complained that capitalism would cause the ‘immiseration’ of the workers, and they dreamed of giant socialist factories, out-producing the West.  

The tragedy (for the Reds) was that capitalism didn’t play ball.  Instead of getting poorer, ordinary folk got richer – much, much richer.  For the simple reason that capitalist mass production must necessarily go hand in hand with mass consumption.  What the new-leftists call ‘consumer society’. 

But these days, anti-capitalists are coloured Green.  They campaign not in the name of the working class, but of ‘Earth’.  Instead of giant factories, they dream of little handicraft workshops and organic peasant farms.  They complain not that capitalism will impoverish the workers, but, on the contrary, that capitalism has made them too rich.  It is the very success of capitalism that seems to upset them.

Green guru James Lovelock says the overconsuming public is like a ‘revolting teenager’ and says we are ‘far too greedy and selfish for our own good.’  Green Party politician Caroline Lucas says we must ‘move away from endless consumerism and materialism.’ Green foodie Colin Tudge, condemns ‘the mindless accumulation of wealth for ill-defined purposes.’ John Naish, in his book Enough, says we should be satisfied with what we have, ‘In the Western world we now have everything we could possibly need.  There is no ‘more’.’  To Oliver James, prosperity is a disease - he calls it the ‘Affluenza Virus’.  It’s all too much for celebrity journalist Rosie Boycott, ‘Stuff – in all its forms – fills the empty spaces inside, which materialism creates.’ 

It is more than ironic that the anti-consumption rant comes from people who are, by global standards, rolling in the stuff and from a superior social class. Take a look at Al Gore and Prince Charles, at Jonathon Porritt, the old Etonian friend of Prince Charles, son of Lord Porritt; or the old Etonian Baron Lord Peter Melchett, former head of Greenpeace, or Ecologist editor Zac Goldsmith, another old Etonian, son of the billionaire James Goldsmith, and nephew of yet another old Etonian the Green guru Edward Goldsmith; or ‘eco-warrior’ Mark Brown, who was acquitted of leading the ‘Carnival Against Capitalism’, who is a member of the fabulously wealthy Vestey family; or the founder of the Soil Association Lady Eve Balfour, daughter of the Earl of Balfour; or the author of the Global Warming Survival Handbook, David de Rothschild, and so on, and on.   Charles Secrett, former executive director of Friends of the Earth helpfully explains, ‘Among the aristocrats there is a sense of noblesse oblige … a feeling of stewardship towards the land.’

Brendan O’Neill says in The Guardian, ‘It is remarkable how many leading environmentalists come from wealthy or aristocratic backgrounds.’ And adds, ‘There is something irritating - actually, let's not beat around the bush - there is something monumentally infuriating about rich people telling the masses that they should live more meekly.’  

It seems that it is not any old consumption that upsets the Greens.  It is mass consumption.  The Green foodies don’t mind expensive organic free-range food, or hand-made cashmere sweaters, or costly Italian floor tiles.  They don’t rail against posh cheese shops or vintners.  The problem is not fine-art auction houses or Persian-rug sellers. The problem is mass production and consumption.  Greens John Cavanagh and Jerry Mander deplore the vulgar bargain hunter for whom, ‘everyday low prices are the ultimate human conquest.’  The Green group Earth First went so far as to organise a ‘puke in’ in a shopping mall.

It is not exclusive, expensive delicatessens, but rather the wicked low-cost supermarkets frequented by everyday folk which they find repellent.  It is a commonly heard complaint from Greens that things ‘aren’t expensive enough’.  The ‘rebels’ down from Eton for the anti-globalisation rallies threw bricks through windows – but not the windows of high-class restaurants.  Instead they smashed up and ransacked a working class MacDonalds when they marched down Piccadilly.  It is not the luxurious Heals furniture shop that makes them angry, but the proletarian IKEA, with its affordable sofas and lamps.

The mass production and distribution of food is deplorable to them.  In fact the mass production of goods, whatever they may be, renders those goods nasty and soulless.  The mass production of houses, the mass consumption of culture … everything to do with the masses, it seems, every form of economic activity that benefits the many-headed, is held to be vulgar and an offence against the natural order.

Edward Goldsmith decried ‘the mass production of shoddy utilitarian goods in ever greater quantities.’   The debased creatures who buy this stuff constituted a different kind of human - Homo Sapiens Industrialis.  

In his book Green Capitalism, James Heartfield says, ‘greens protest against a certain kind of consumption – mass consumption.  By their green consumer choices, environmentalists are demonstrating that they are better than the herd … Green consumerism does not mean consuming less than the rest.  In fact it ends up meaning that you consume more.  Your consumer choices are more finickity, less easily satisfied.  They say something about you.’  

And the same goes for the Green outrage at mass tourism, ‘The ‘conscientious consumers’ love air travel – for themselves.  They just hate cheap air travel that everyone else can enjoy.  The reason they first got into tourism was to get away from us. Now that we are all following them, ruining their isolated spots in Ibiza and the Dordogne, they need a reason to stop us.  Not to put too fine a point on it, concern over CO2 emissions came after the prejudice that mass tourism was a blight.  Global warming predictions provide a useful, quasi-scientific justification for anti-working class prejudice.’

He is right.  None of this is new.  In 1958 the patrician JK Galbraith looked down his nose at this increasing prosperity in his The Affluent Society.  Ten years later, with even greater disgust, Paul Ehrlich, condemned ‘the effluent society’.

In 1973 E.F Schumacher in his classic Green text Small is Beautiful, said the modern consumer ‘is propelled by a frenzy of greed and indulges in an orgy of envy’.  He complained, ‘The cultivation and expansion of needs is the antithesis of wisdom.’  His conclusion was devastating.  We must abandon any hope of attaining ‘universal prosperity’, because, he said, ‘universal prosperity … if attainable at all, is attainable only by cultivating such drives of human nature as greed and envy.’

But to say that mass consumption was ‘the antithesis of wisdom’ was clearly not enough.  The Greens needed some solid reason why economic progress should be rolled back.  Conveniently, three years after Small is Beautiful, Lowell Ponte published his big scary book, The Cooling, which predicted that pollution from our consumer society would blot out the sun and push the earth into an ice age.  Mass consumption wasn’t just morally depraved, it was now dangerous too.  Ponte warned, ‘prosperity could mean disaster.’  In fact ‘the cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people.’  This was a disaster with a moral message.  The masses must tighten their belts, ‘Note this word need. It is readily confused with the word want in industrial societies, where the dominant value is consumption rather than conservation.’

The Green anti-consumption rant, though fashionable among the elite, does not go down big with the great unwashed.  People who are experiencing wealth for the first time rarely think badly of it. The Greens always moan that the bulk of the population is unmoved by their silly warnings of impending catastrophe.  Whether it’s global cooling or global warming or genetically modified ‘Frankenstein’ food, all the end-of-the-world stuff fails to grip the imagination of the masses.  No surprise.  They know that it’s all directed against them.

The Greens tell us that food should come from peasants rather than industrial farms. Chairs and tables should be produced, not in factories, but lovingly by skilled artisans.  But as we all know, such antiquated, handicraft methods inevitably produce far fewer, more expensive goods.  Handicraft production was what happened in that Green golden age before capitalist production, when the vast majority of people were grindingly poor – unable to afford such lovingly crafted, hand-made luxuries.  These were the good old days, when everyone knew their place in the ‘natural order’.

Green anti-capitalism is Snob anti-capitalism.  This is not mere name-calling.  It goes to the very heart of what ‘Green’  is about.

 

Comments (90)

I like to think that my

I like to think that my skepticism is healthy regarding the issue of Global Warming/Climate change. And while I have become more in agreement with some of the science, it's the behavior of the supporters and the politicians that raise the warning flag for me. And that is precisely the reason google led me to this page. I want to learn more about how this movement started and who's pulling the strings.

He is correct in the fact that the vast majority of "Warmers" have a disdain for capitalism, corporatism and any other ism that seems to be the trend regarding western economies.
And when I see the very people who claim that increasing CO2 is a very real threat ignore the recommendations of the very scientists they revere, I become even more skeptical of their motives.

Numerous Climate Scientists have proclaimed Nuclear Power to be the most affordable, most effective and most readily available solution to the problem of skyrocketing CO2 levels. Yet without a moments consideration it is dismissed by people who admittedly know very little about nuclear energy.

I also read an essay by Dr Patrick Moore (former Co-founder of Greenpeace). To hear him tell his experiences and why he left that organization, is to see how the entire environmental movement was hijacked by anti-capitalists. They are promoting their socioeconomic agenda under a green cloak.

My only hope is that more people will ask questions and eventually uncover exactly what is going on.

Thanks for the article, very informative.

"most readily available

"most readily available solution to the problem of skyrocketing CO2 levels"

What is the problem? 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is near the lowest it has ever been in Earth's history. At 200 ppm many species of plants are not able to grow. At 150 ppm, nothing will grow. At 1200 ppm, however, greenhouse operators have known for a long time that plant growth is near optimum. The 2400 pm of the Jurassic produces sufficient plant live to support the dinosaurs. at 20,000 ppm Earth was a snowball.
Over the last few decades atmospheric C02 has risen from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. This has nothing to do with anthropenic C02, but is a result of the cyclical warming of the late twentieth century. The result is higher crop yields, and a visible greening of the planet.

What is the problem? The problem is that the properity associated with slightly warmer temperatures, and more C02 does not lend itself to the sadistic green religion and its totalitarian pundits.

Seriously… I am tired of

Seriously… I am tired of watching this drama. It is a fact that the anti-consumption protest comes from people who are rolling in the stuff and from a superior social class. Anyways thanks a lot for the information. Keep sharing more news.

Ask a GW at a dinner party

Ask a GW at a dinner party about 'supermarkets', very logical not!

Where is the basis for your arguments on scientific evidence other than a few 'cranks' that the science community think are in need of medical treatment?

A more logical question to ask is why do many non science people believe in total science clap-trap when the rest,majority, science community believe the obvious?

Science has taken over from religious/fanaticism/superstition as history tells us, well those that like in the 21st c anyway!

Why do you think people used to think the Earth was flat,the Earth was the centre of the solar system/universe? Many of these people were 'authority' but ignorant non scientists as history reminds us!

Today we 'all' have the tools to find out science problems and evidence to support/refute any 'crank' theories. I would urge your 'believers' to 'find out yourself', although that it obviously a scientific approach that will fall by the wayside because you obviously haven't done it already as any sensible person would have!

Where is the Anti global warming party that was set up by the oil companies, disbanded, because of irrefutable evidence 'proving' GW! Even people/corporations with vested interests had to concede, so why are you people 'clinging' to a false hope that your fear is about to be realised? Remember King Canute?

There are also an awful lot

There are also an awful lot of government employees making large amounts of money from this fraud. On some case, such as Poritt, there is a crossover with the traditional ruling class but sometimes it is bureaucratic parasitism pure and simple.

"The purpose of government programmes is to pay government employees and their friends, the nominal purpose is secondary, at best" Pournelle

Ity may not be the case that every single supporter of the catastrophic warming fraud is wholly and completely corrupt buty it is the way to bet. This is proven by the fact that not a single one of them is able to produce any scientific proof for any part of the scare stories they produce (for example the previous anon) anmd that none of them are willing to publicly dissociate themselves even from those like Gore, Blair, Jones, Mann, Obama, Prince Chuck, Porritt, Miliband, Miliband, the IPCC, Ehrlich etc etc etc who have proven themselvers wholly corrupt.

The problem with this article

The problem with this article is that climate change is not a political issue. Sure, if you can disprove it with science, I'll believe you. But what you've written here is just opinion and does not address the real issue.

I'm beginning to think it's

I'm beginning to think it's gone past anti-capitalism and towards technocratic fascism. Green elites and celebrities are now showing their true colours and the writer of 'The Book of Rubbish Ideas' said that downshifting wasn't for the 'great unwashed and lazy buggars'. Many of them are for eugenics including Jonathan Porrit.

For some time I've felt uncomfortable at meetings on environment issues including Transition meetings and red flags have started to appear. People arguing that the future means a plant based diet for all of us. In other words, vegan. Yet I bet the elites will be able to eat meat, fish and dairy.

Lovely atricle Martin, so

Lovely atricle Martin, so well thought out and so right. Keep the good work up, somebody has got to hold these people to account.

"These people" do you mean

"These people" do you mean 99.9% of the scientific community? And you in your arrogance believe 'you' and cranks are right?

I realise this is an 'old' post, hopefully recent events will have opened your eyes!

Very valid, pithy, scucnict,

Very valid, pithy, scucnict, and on point. WD.

What a great rsoeurce this

What a great rsoeurce this text is.

This atrcile is a home run,

This atrcile is a home run, pure and simple!

It's not a conspiracy, but

It's not a conspiracy, but beneath it all is the desire of the elites to keep down the "peasants" - keep'em poor, badly educated/ignorant, make travel too expensive, etc. And preferably keep these damned peasants dependent on the state via destroying strong family and personal responsibility, make it too damned hard to start and run small business, get'em onto welfare and raise them in a statist dependency culture. Rule'em. Just like the good old days of rulers and masters before the enlightenment, democracy, universal public education, the abolition of slavery, etc. Oh, and if they ARE working or running businesses, tax'em like Hell, all in the name of "social justice".
Oh, and by the way, with rising standards of living, environmental management and quality usually improves, despite popular opinion. Consider the quality of the environment in the old communist block against that in Western Europe or the USA. As people's prosperity increass, they start to value things like the environemnt more, and can also afford to spent resources and money on it. When societies are poor, the most importan thing is survival today (food, shelter), and not the environment.

Love the article. Love the

Love the article. Love the font. Keep 'em coming!

Recommendation to Richard,

Recommendation to Richard, age 16: visit Wattsupwiththat.com, and start reading.

And a POV (point of view) to consider in contrast to what you've been taught: cheap energy available to all is FAR easier on the environment than the brutal scavenging that characterizes "natural" communities and economies. E.g.: far more of the US is forested than when the Pilgrims arrived.

The drive for Status is the

The drive for Status is the most potent of all. Buyers of Cadillacs, notwithstanding that it costs about 20% more to make one than a standard Chevy, revel in nosebleed pricing because it makes their purchases more exclusive. Which is the whole point.

Given a choice, most would choose a $500,000 home in a neighbourhood of $400,000 houses in preference to a $1,000,000 one in a mostly $1,500,000 enclave. Being one-up is more important than being up.

Thanks for pulling together

Thanks for pulling together so many arguments against AGW. The vapid rantings from the Gore clique have a surprising ring about them - a combination of Animal Farm and 1984!
Keep up the good work.

Love the article, will look

Love the article, will look out for more output from you.
Hate the Font it is printed in though....!!!!

This essay brings to mind a

This essay brings to mind a book I read in the '80s: Progress and Privelege by William Tucker. A key element among the leadership of environmentalist philosophy is the attempt to protect priveleges of the elite from encroachment by the masses -- via technological (and economic) progress. Of course, this book pre-dated the availability of such a convenient vehicle for environmentalist dogma as global warming, but relevant just the same.

Fascinating for us folks who've been around a few years, and have seen the same ideology use a number of stepping stones as platforms from the 60's through to the present. Population, pollution, radiation, waste, climate change, just to name a few. But I think the ringleaders have always had the same real motivating fears: "There are too many of you, and too many of you are sharing my priveleges."

"Excellent post, sir, but

"Excellent post, sir, but that hard-to-read font hurts my eyes."

I agree on both counts. I'm not a great fan of Times Roman or Arial/Helvetica, but either would be preferable. Maybe Verdana..?

I agree also with another commenter about the inclusion of Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford), who has done more than most to demolish the Hockey Stick.

Partly correct, no doubt.

Partly correct, no doubt. However, I am sure Messrs Cameron, Hague and just about every member of the cabinet would not like to be called anti capitalists. In fact, sceptical Conservative MPs are about as rare as hen's teeth. Having said that, it is reported that Cameron's father-in-law is picking up £3M from the siting of wind generators on his vast estate.

An absolutely superb

An absolutely superb analysis.

Our betters want to undo the industrial revolution and stuff us back into the Malthusian trap, where we were held in preindustrial times.

Have you read Gregory Clarks recent book on the industrial revolution, "A farewell to Arms"?. This suggests reasons why England was the fist country in the world to escape grinding poverty, thanks to the industrial revolution.

<i>..the "Industrial Revolution," blasted the ideological and institutional barriers to progress and welfare. They demolished the social order in which a constantly increasing number of people were doomed to abject need and destitution. The processing trades of earlier ages had almost exclusively catered to the wants of the well-to-do. Their expansion was limited by the amount of luxuries the wealthier strata of the population could afford. Those not engaged in the production of primary commodities could earn a living only as far as the upper classes were disposed to utilize their skill and services. </i>
from:
http://mises.org/daily/4604

We need a classical Liberal party.

Anti-capitalism is snobbery

Anti-capitalism is snobbery (an expression of contempt - and hate - by rich aristos for the proles). Is, was and always will be.

Well said! You might stress

Well said! You might stress more on the point of "Global Cooling" before "Global Warming" scare to show these eco-terrorists have no morals or scruples and will say or do anything to destroy capitalism to restore the "natural order of things" where they will still have all the stuff they want.

Exactly. The "soft and

Exactly. The "soft and furry creatures with big eyes" now include the tribal end of humanity. Always wanted to present a Green with the tobacco coulored reality of a polar bear, watching with a wry smile as it kills and eats said green person. Now I include the smell of our brothers...... the small biting things that infest their beds, the lack of any light at night to study by other than a fire, and the joy of having a period or taking a crap in the jungle.....
Marcus

I wish that I was able to put

I wish that I was able to put things as clearly as you, because what you wrote there is exactly what I have thought for a long time now but couldn't express it nearly so well. Thank you for such a well written article, if only the majority of people would wake up to this we could be rid of this stupid politically driven fake crisis for good.

I read 'Small is Beautiful'

I read 'Small is Beautiful' many years ago and was captivated by the message of returning to the more austere age proposed by the author. I lent the book to someone who failed to return it; a shame, because as I became more cynical, the austerity bit no longer held quite the same place in my critical thinking but I could no longer check the references.
I watched 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' with great interest and am still keen to obtain a copy of the programme if it is still available. I quoted bits (with attribution) in our Parish magazine with, it has to be said, negative results although as time has gone on more of my friends are beginning to question the politics behind this scam.
I shall follow this blog with the same interest as I do Bishop Hill.
Good luck!
Tony Windsor

What an excellent article. I

What an excellent article.

I look forward to Martin's future blogs on the 'green' politics associated with AGW.

I take martin's point about the elite (just look at the Hollywood luvvies) asking the rest of us to live the sort of deprived lives that they wouldn't dream of living themselves.

The missing word in his piece, that describes the eco loons is 'HYPOCRITES' - or in quite a few cases 'SUPER HYPOCRITES'.

Well, that hit the nail

Well, that hit the nail firmly on the head.

Great article, please sir, more, and I implore you to spread the clarity of this message unto the dominance of the one dimensional, divisive and stagnant MSM.

I do, however, pity the effort you are going to have to endure once you have opened the vials of wrath and ad hominem in moderating the backlash from the "gnashing and wailing of teeth" braying from the Righteous that will inevitably follow... :)

Great piece. The trouble is

Great piece. The trouble is that politics and the media is infested with these green middle class guilt ridden fools who have never experienced a whiff of poverty or probably even the risk of unemployment. Because of this they dont fear being poorer like a normal person would. Instead they think it a price worth paying (by us) to cleanse their dirty souls.

How do we get their hands off the levers of power?

Excellent post, sir, but that

Excellent post, sir, but that hard-to-read font hurts my eyes.

<i>This is the first in a

<i>This is the first in a series of blog pieces to explore the green politics behind global warming .....</i>

Thank you. This is important stuff to get across to people. It is good to have the politics separated from the science.

A typical believer who has not looked at the science behind the headlines and holds <i>science</i> in high regard will believe that climate change is catastrophic 'because scientists say so'. I've been there - I was one. Challenged to look at the science by my sceptic husband, I found a lot of what sceptics were saying hard to accept. I believed in 'the consensus' behind the AGW movement and could not understand what would drive such a movement other than science. It was this that made it very hard to 'let go' and accept that there was another side to the science, but that I was just not getting to hear about it. Eventually I understood that a normal scientific debate was raging, but that the world was really only getting to see one side of it, but the key to it was understanding some of the politics.

So I am saying that, for those begining to question, coming at the issue from the perspective of politics may open their minds to there being two sides to the story.

Incidentally, The Great Global Warming Swindle was a milestone in my own conversion from Believer to Sceptic - so Thank You there too!

Great article, thank you!

Great article, thank you!

Just seen great example: a

Just seen great example: a woman walking out of Waitrose wearing a teeshirt saying "it's cool to be an eco lover", and climb into a big 4x4 Ford Ranger pick-up truck. The irony of it!

How can an author use so many

How can an author use so many words to say nothing....and, better yet, PROVE NOTHING. What a load of BS! This load of words is meant to confuse idiots!

‘There is something

‘There is something irritating - actually, let's not beat around the bush - there is something monumentally infuriating about rich people telling the masses that they should live more meekly.’

That's an understatement

For the leaders of "Green"

For the leaders of "Green" organisations I agree with you.

However what brought ecofascism from a tiny bunch of loons to a major political influence and indeed an existential threat to western civilisation is government adoption of it. If the BBC were not giving 40 times more coverage, per voter, to the "Greens" than UKIP and government not pouring over a billion annually into ecofascist propaganda they would be very far short of getting half as many votes as the BNP do.

So why is government pushing what they know to be a complete fraud. - HL Mencken said it nearly a century ago.

""The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Almost all of government is parasitism but they need such fraudulent scare stories to get away with it.

The "Boomers", so named

The "Boomers", so named because they exploded on the scene so fast that they used up every available baby diaper/nappy on the planet, are moving to the lowest slopes of the mountain (and starting to use nappies once again too;-). Yes, they are still traveling at great speed and can still make quite an impact --of sorts-- when they plow off the track and into the trees and a bunch of young making their slow assent, but they are declining rapidly in every way. Their grandchildren and greatgrandchildren are now doomed to clean up and pay dearly for their mess, feed them in their final days, wipe their mouth repeatedly, change those nappies, bury them, say a word or two on their passing, and rebuild a new world of their own design from the waste and rubble. Someone labled their parents as the "Greatest Generation", the Boomers will no doubt be labled the "Worst". Little wonder why when you think a moment of all they've done and the mess they've made.

I agree with you Martin about

I agree with you Martin about these snobby greenies, but what I don't like about consumerism is when it comes at the expense of vast rainforrests, Ocean ecosystems, and large polar caps. 'True greens' want sustainability and appreciation of the Earth's natural environment, not selfish human's who are in it for profit and are ignorant to the consequences of their actions. I don't know whether, global warming is caused by increased CO2 emissions or it's just a natural cycle, but the wild weather of recent times such as the record heatwaves, droughts, torrential rainfalls, and snowfalls, I would have to believe that global warming is surely here? Wouldn't you?

I've only just recently

I've only just recently become interested in the topic of global warming and I'm still a bit uncertain of who's side to support.

Reading your article, I think you're spot on that some of these greenies are posh anti-capitalists, and it sounds pretty crazy to me that the population should be paying for expensive goods such as artisan chairs and that the mass population shouldn't be allowed to travel around the world and experience different places. But surely these greenies that you're talking about are just a small proportion of people who are concerned about the Earth's future health and sustainability. I've seen Al Gore's documentary on global warming and I was a bit skeptical about his computer models and the rising sea temperatures etc but I can't figure out why everyone seems to think he has political motives and that he is lying about global warming. After seeing pictures of Lake Chad's shrinkage, the pictures of all the Glacier retreats, and observing the recent droughts of Russia and Western Europe, the recent tornadoes in the USA, the flooding in Pakistan, China and Brazil, then Queensland in AUS. This year there has been a record heatwave in the Eastern USA, last year there were record temperatures set in a heatwave in the Middle East and a heatwave in Rio De Janeiro. Then compare the heatwaves to the record snowfalls, and cold winter of the Northern Hemisphere.

All I can say is that it seems like the weather is getting crazy and this is not local its global.

Too the consumer question and the question: what is 'green' about?

I would say that consumerism is ok and that exponential population growth expected to continue, is acceptable, only if the Earth's environment isn't destroyed and harmed causing the destruction of Tropical rainforrests, Ocean ecosystems, and large polar caps which determine the Earth's temperature.

I think that true 'greens' are people who are concerned about the sustanability of the natural environment and human's survival, not posh aristocrats who want to make themselves feel better by buying expensive artisan chairs and sipping on chai lattes.

So I'm not sure about whether global warming is caused by CO2 emissions or if it's just a natural cycle, but what I do think is that people who are one sided and selfish, and in it for profit, are just ignorant sheep, who are not open minded and don't care about their surroundings.

Despite the promises in the

Despite the promises in the opening paragraph there isn't actually any science in this piece, it's all opinion. Since, Mr Durkin, the purpose of your writing is to invite us to share your opinion wouldn't it be appropriate to respond to some of the criticisms made against you like those found in this short film : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk

This is an excellent resume

This is an excellent resume of the sanctimonious hypocrites whose very reason for existing is to tell us what to do whilst doing the exact opposite themselves? I hope you get round to those on the green gravy train?

They say that the road to

They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and that appears to be true in this particular case. I am certain that many in the environmental movements are very sincere as are religious folk, it is their masters who manipulate their followers to fullfill their own agenda who need to be revealed for what they really are.
Good article, I will be back for more.
The following is totally unrelated but is symptomatic of abuse of power.
have just visited GoPetition and found the following page very interesting:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/free-wwii-veteran-norman-scarth-from...

"Snob capitalism" hits the

"Snob capitalism" hits the nail on the head!

Spot on. The reason they want

Spot on.
The reason they want to preserve the earth is they own it.
Malthus, although wrong, is always more popular with some people than The great Adam Smith.

Well said, and I am hoping to

Well said, and I am hoping to see a documentary with this theme. I spotted the DVD link above, and was wondering why your "Against Nature" series was not available... I would LOVE to see it.

Well said, and I am hoping to

Well said, and I am hoping to see a documentary with this theme. I spotted the DVD link above, and was wondering why your "Against Nature" series was not available... I would LOVE to see it.

What he said.

What he said.

Good luck, Martin, with your

Good luck, Martin, with your blog! It was your prog on Channel 4 in March 2007 that first alerted me that there was another side to all the media climate hype. Informing myself about the fascinating subject of climate has been my major interest ever since. All thanks to you!

Its something that has always

Its something that has always puzzled me actually. I can remember going to a speaker meeting some years ago in Malvern. During the lunch break I had a walk round town and decided to have a cup of coffee and a cake in a supermarket cafe. When I mentioned where I had spent the break one chap with a plum in his mouth went ballistic railing against supermarkets and people that frequent them. It took my breath away.

Post new comment