The Great and Abominable Church: Environmentalism

[_Coggins7]

The recent (and now stalled) thread on AGW brings up an interesting point vis a vis the environmental movement and its relation to the prophesied “Great and Abominable Church” of Satan that would hold sway amongst the peoples and nations of the earth in the Latter Days. It would seem that environmentalism’s (as opposed to conservationism) strong connection with the cultural and political Left, including notions of communitarian Socialism, Communism (Barry Commner,(Ecological Marxism) Mikhail Gorbachev (Green Cross International and the Earth Charter), and numerous other Communist theorists who moved strongly into the movement after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 , as well as the rise of a Neo-Pagan, neo-primintivist secular Pantheism (normatively known as “Deep Ecology”) give environmentalism a major place of importance within the major branches of that “church” among the many other branches or divisions that are a part of its overall structure.

Indeed, environmentalism, as a counter religion with respect to the Gospel, and the Judeo/Christian tradition in a broad sense, and as a vigorous opponent of liberal democracy and the classical Liberal tradition in political and economic theory, is well placed to be a pivotal aspect of the Great and Abominable Church’s continuing (through the agency of the cultural Left) war upon liberty, the concept of unalienable rights, private property, free speech, and gospel norms regarding family and the proper organization of a civil, free society.

If convenience abortion is the sacrament of the adversary culture, environmentalism is its cultus and AGW its Eschaton (the hunter/gatherer state of human history being its golden age, or Eden). Environmentalism is implacably hostile to both liberal democracy and the Judeo/Christian background of that civilizational model, and hence has been in the forefront of the forty or so year assault upon the core principles and institutions upon which that civilization rests. In this context, AGW is of paramount importance to the Left because as falls AGW, so falls the last (thus far) best pretext for the imposition of collectivist social and economic model upon American, and by extension, other western representative societies. Socialism is well beyond serious philosophical support except in the intellectual ghettos that now, for the most part, define the humanities and social science professorate in North American academia. This, and the mainstream media and the arts, are the only places sympathy for socialist economic theory and social organization continue to exist unencumbered by the lesions of history or the critical light of philosophical rigor. Outside of either these towers built of ivory or glitter, there is little sympathy for the ideology of leveling and outcome based social structure beloved of those Dr. Thomas Sowell as fittingly called “The Anointed”.

AGW, as well as the many other apocalyptic myths created by the environmental movement (overpopulation, DDT, nuclear power, Dioxin, ozone hole depletion, species extinction, deforestation, massive air pollution (supposedly bringing on a new ice age during the seventies), the endless and pervasive chemicaphobia (manifest primarily as the cult of cancer as caused by modern lifestyles and technology), the anti-fast food hysteria, hostility to biotechnology, resistance to the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in modern commercial farming) over the past four decades to create a continuing sense of overpowering fear and anxiety that, it is hoped, will eventually override rationality and love of freedom such that those Gaddianton Robbers seeking power who form the core of the ideological and political leadership of the environmental movement will finally be able to overcome the constitutional and political obstacles to the taking and wielding of power in a manner utterly inconsistent with that document’s divine and timeless principles of individual liberty and self governance.
Environmentalism is already the alternative and adversarial religion of the adversary culture, and stands poised against the background of both historic Christian ideals, the Enlightenment, and the English Classical Liberal tradition to subvert and finally destroy both representative government and the moral and ethical (Peter Singer, for example, among many that could be given) foundations of western liberal civilization.

Modern environmentalism is really kind of a fusion between ancient Mediterranean fertility cult religion and Marx, combined with elements of modern Neo-Paganism and New Age metaphysical concepts and some post seventies French philosophy thrown in just to make things a little more nihilistic than they otherwise would have been (the Left has always vacillated between nihilistic relativism and dogmatic absolutism, but that’s another discussion).

My take on this is that, in essence, environmentalism is a the unofficial fundamentalist religion of the cultural Left, both in North America and around the world. It represents, for them, not a camel’s nose, but a whole herd of camel’s noses in the western, liberal democratic tent. If AGW fails (and its beginning to make its last stand even as I write this), the Left (the committed and systematic ideological aspect of the Great and Abominable Church) will move on without pause to the next crisis (which will always be the fault of America, capitalism, private property rights, representative government, and Christianity regardless of the catastrophe in question) , just as they did when they left the new ice age behind for Waterworld.

Rachel Carson’s influence has been almost single handedly responsible for as much death and human suffering as the Soviet Union during its entire 70 or so year reign of terror among its own people, killing needlessly over thrity million third world people, mostly children, when most of those deaths could have been easily prevented. We are in the oil predicament we are in at the moment, with sky high prices and dependence for oil on our most violent and unpredictable enemies, precisely through the influence of the environmental movement and its lobbying arms who have seen to it that not a single petroleum refining or production facility has been built on American soil for almost thirty years. We have not built a single now nuclear power facility in some twenty five years. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost in the nineties in the Pacific Northwest to the Spotted Owl extinction hoax perpetrated by the same people within the same movements. The GAACOS (hereafter Great and Abominable Church of Satan) moves on apace, consuming all before it in its continuing war against righteousness and human dignity. Hoaxes (mass public deceptions for ideological or other reasons) are of course a major part of the techniques used under the auspices of such a movement. AGW is a myth that has little if any scientific support, and therefore, little or no political value in culture war, unless vast exaggerations and frightful scenarios are spoon fed a media and image saturated and driven society to the extent that Goebbles could never have imagined (his “big lie” had only theatre, radio and print media to aid in its dissemination. Modern communications technology creates whole new vistas that the propagandists of prior ages could not even have dreamed).

Hence, my thesis is that environmentalism is a alternative counter-religion with respect to the Gospel and to historic Judeo/Christian social, moral, ethical, and political paradigms, that it is the unofficial religion of the Left, much of which considers itself utterly secular (and in is, in a very real sense of course), and that it is an important branch or sect of the GAACOS.

[_Fortigurn]

You've just given away your position Cogs. You object to AGW on the basis of a political and religious bias, not on the basis of its scientific credibility, or lack thereof.

[_Great Cthulhu]

Was this covered in Tim LeHaye's inspirational Left Behind series? If not, he missed a goldmine.

Cog(dis)7, I suggest you try your hand at genre fiction, before the old wet one returns and starts eating people....



The stars are right! The Elder Gods are going to rise and eat us all!

[_Coggins7]

I'm not sure if you have a reading comprehension problem Fort, of your just playing the gadfly for the sake of playing the part, but I made quitge crystal clear in the other global warming thread that my disbelief in AGW is based in the lack of facts or evidence supporting it. The ideology and politics of AGW is another thing, and that I destest not because there is no scientific evidence for it, but because it is philosophically and morally illegitimate. The ideology is used to control the terms of debate in the public spehre through a willing lapdog-like media and promulgate the ideoology of environmentalism, using the theory of AGW as a foil against capitalism, economic growth etc.

The evvirnomentalist ideolgoy behind AGW is dealt with in a different manner than the evidence for AGw, which is easy to dismiss based on what's actually available in the professional literature.

At this point, your rambling on about whether or not or why I don't like AGW leaves me baffled as to just why your debating me at all. Is it my dislike of AGW as a scientific theory you don't like, or my dislike of the political and cultural movement that supports it?

[_Fortigurn]

Was this covered in Tim LeHaye's inspirational Left Behind series? If not, he missed a goldmine.

Cog(dis)7, I suggest you try your hand at genre fiction, before the old wet one returns and starts eating people....



The stars are right! The Elder Gods are going to rise and eat us all!

That's an extremely wussy image of Cthulhu, but a fantastic parody of Chick.

I'm not sure if you have a reading comprehension problem Fort, of your just playing the gadfly for the sake of playing the part, but I made quitge crystal clear in the other global warming thread that my disbelief in AGW is based in the lack of facts or evidence supporting it.

That was indeed your claim in the other thread. Unfortunately you not only failed to support your claim, you couldn't even answer my simple questions. But it's ok, now you've outed yourself and made clear the true basis of your objection.

At this point, your rambling on about whether or not or why I don't like AGW leaves me baffled as to just why your debating me at all. Is it my dislike of AGW as a scientific theory you don't like, or my dislike of the political and cultural movement that supports it?

I haven't been rambling. I've been asking you repeatedly (and with great patience), to explain the process of investigation and evaluation by which you have reached your conclusions on this subject. This does not mean quoting slabs of boilerplate from your favourite websites, or lists of scientist's names.

To date, you have failed to do this.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

This will be my last post to you until and unless you choose to get serious, have an intellectually productive and stimulating debate (if that's really what you want to do...which I doubt), and cease playing lets pretend Fort is a sophisticated intellectual. Ok, now, for the last time Mr. Wizard:


I disbelieve in AGW because there is no credible scientific evidence for it. Period, end of story. The importance of AGW to the Left is another but connected issue. AGW is an ideology as much as a scientific theory, but the scientific aspect of it is refuted in a different manner from the ideological and philosophical.

As to your claim of having been in some manner "outed", please. My absolute abhorrance of the Left and its beliefs is no secret, nor is it a secret that AGW is a hobby horse of the Left that will be dropped and forgotton as soon as the scientific mainstream turns against it (which is beginning to happen now) and puts it in its well desered scientific grave.

As to failing to substantiate my claims in the other thread, you had your homework and reading cut out for you, which, apparantly, you have not done and have no intention of doing. What do you want to discuss Fort, AGW as a scientific theory, or AGW as an ideology. l'll discuss one, the other, or both, as soon as you make up your mind what it is you'd like to talk about.





That's an extremely wussy image of Cthulhu, but a fantastic parody of Chick.

Cogs wrote:
I'm not sure if you have a reading comprehension problem Fort, of your just playing the gadfly for the sake of playing the part, but I made quitge crystal clear in the other global warming thread that my disbelief in AGW is based in the lack of facts or evidence supporting it.



That was indeed your claim in the other thread. Unfortunately you not only failed to support your claim, you couldn't even answer my simple questions. But it's ok, now you've outed yourself and made clear the true basis of your objection.

Quote:
At this point, your rambling on about whether or not or why I don't like AGW leaves me baffled as to just why your debating me at all. Is it my dislike of AGW as a scientific theory you don't like, or my dislike of the political and cultural movement that supports it?



I haven't been rambling. I've been asking you repeatedly (and with great patience), to explain the process of investigation and evaluation by which you have reached your conclusions on this subject. This does not mean quoting slabs of boilerplate from your favourite websites, or lists of scientist's names.

To date, you have failed to do this.


_________________
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 2 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 1 | grampa75 x 1 |

[_Mr. Coffee]

I disbelieve in AGW because there is no credible scientific evidence for it.|

Really now?

One stop shop for pretty much every arguemtn you have against AGW and the science that debunks them.

The importance of AGW to the Left is another but connected issue. AGW is an ideology as much as a scientific theory, but the scientific aspect of it is refuted in a different manner from the ideological and philosophical.|

Ok, then show us your SCIENTIFIC evidence that disproves AGW's scientific evidence.

Also, be a man and quit hiding behind strawmandering. Trying to say that the credibility of evidence is negated by ideology or philosophy is retarded. By that logic then any evidence you present is invalid because of your religious views on the subject.

[_Jersey Girl]

Was this covered in Tim LeHaye's inspirational Left Behind series? If not, he missed a goldmine.

Cog(dis)7, I suggest you try your hand at genre fiction, before the old wet one returns and starts eating people....



The stars are right! The Elder Gods are going to rise and eat us all!

For what reason that a post like this not considered SPAM? I'd like an answer to that cause I'm getting kind of sick of seeing cartoons posted in a serious thread.

Jersey Girl

[_Coggins7]

I think its quite interesting that the best you can do is give us a link to the British government sponsored agency, the National Environment Research Council, a pro AGW, government fincaned and sponsored bully pulpit for the statist party line on AGW. The dead givaway is in a statement made on their homepage:

Impartial, Independent, Innovative.

Oh really? But NERC is funded by the Bristish government to the tune of over 300,000,000 a years. This evokes the same corrupton of science by interested government money that we've seen in this country. Now just take a look at NERCs own position statemetns:

Scientific evidence demonstrates clearly that human activity is changing the planet's climate. But there are still sceptics who dispute the data and its interpretation. If you don't believe the science, please tell us why and we'll do our best to respond to your challenge.

NERC focuses on environmental science, most of which is useful to policy makers, regulators or other public sector bodies. NERC aims to provide sustainable solutions to environmental challenges, and to contribute to the evidence base for policy making and regulation.

Two-way interaction is essential to ensure that NERC's science is useful and used in this sector. We need to engage policy makers and other public sector bodies in our research from the outset, to ensure its relevance. You need to be able to access and understand our scientific outputs.

The first statement, that scientific evidence clearly idicates human influence regarding the warming of the earth is flatly false, as one can see here: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sc ... istory.jsp. Notice the mass of peer reviewed literatue sourced here.

Its interesting as well that NERC is connected quite closely with the IPCC, which it claims, straightfacedly, is the worlds leading authority on climate change. In reality of course, although the last IPCC report had to tone down the hysterical rhetoric quite a bit due to the lack of data for their preconceived bias, the IPCC is widely known as a severely politicized body that has been caught red handed fudging their research and conclusions more than once (Richard Landsea resigned in protest over the preconceived notions guiding interpreation and use of data) and whose political members throw intellectually dubious claims (not even supported by the IPCC scientists themselves, in some of the early cases) at a media hungry for ideological meat.

The third statement, that NERC (the state) needs to ingage other "policy makers and other public sector bodies" (the state) in order to ensure the "relevance"of their scientific research is another clera indication that incest, is indeed, best. NERC has already decided (how conveinent for the "policy makers" who will preside over the overwhelming leviathan government that will control and dictate virtually every aspect of the lives of their citizens in a Kyoto Protocol or Inconveinent Truth world that will preside over the progressive destruction of free enterprise, property rights, and individual liberty in the quest to "save the planet") that AGW is real, even though the scienec says nothing of the kind and the online debate that NERC, to its credit, sponsored, contains some excellent and pointed rebtltles to the AGW supporters. Indeed, in spite of NERC;s pronouncemet on its website, the online debate and even some of their own supporting material do seem to support the main claims of the skeptics: that the caurse of the warming (well, what warming, it ended in 1998 and has been flat ever since) is as yet unknown and huge uncertainties exist. Some of their other statements, such as those defending the GCMs as competent predictors of future climate are preposterous.

I noticed that much of the wording on the page that explains global warming is somewhat evasive and vague, but no matter. The professional literature to date is in a constant state of flus on the issue and their is no clear picture yet of just what is going on. There is an mainstream opinion among most scientists that modern warming is human caused, but not in the professional literature, especially the highly specialized literature, which has little or no ideological axes to grind as to the data, even if the researchers themselves may.


If someone would like to debate the issue point by point, I think that would be more productive.

[_Coggins7]

This board has trouble with some links. If the link to CO2Science doens't work, cut and paste it to your browser address field and it should work. I did for me.