Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Who's Behind the Green Movement?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1    Nax

Nax

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2003

  • It seemed like a good idea at the time...

Posted 25 November 2003 - 03:57 PM

Who is really behind the Green Movement? Does anyone really know?
(Reproduced from "Against Nature" Published in 1997 by Channel 4 Television, 124 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2TX)


Characterising environmentalist ideology as unscientific, irrational and anti-humanist, this acerbic and polemical three-part series turns 'Green' ideas on their head.

Against Nature begins by exposing the absence of scientific rigour behind notions such as the greenhouse effect and global warming. It goes on to contrast densely populated, industrialised First World countries (much hated by the Greens), which have clean air, clean water and long life expectancies, with sparsely populated, largely pre-industrial countries (much loved by the Greens), which have polluted water, terrible air and far shorter life expectancies.

The second programme exposes the myth of overpopulation and points to the barbarism and racism of environmentalist plans to reduce population levels in the Third World.

The last programme in the series identifies environmentalism as the new enemy of science, taking over from religion. It argues that Green scaremongering about genetics and fertility has led to valuable scientific research being stopped.



Makes interesting and thought provoking reading
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/aginatur.htm


#2    Stamford

Stamford

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined:30 Oct 2003
  • Location:Maybe It's because I'm a Londoner

  • Here's to better days

Posted 25 November 2003 - 04:55 PM

Certainly raises some interesting issues, Nax.

We in the West have a better life than our counterparts in the developing world (longer life expectancy, better education, etc), but is this due to environmental factors?

We have a better health service, so that's one reason why we live longer; longer established democracies mean that we have fewer wars, which would sap our Nations' wealth and thus the ability to help our citizens.  But these aren't environmental issues.

And of course the 3rd World was the battle ground of the Cold War and that has had far reaching consequences for these developing nations - not to mention the Imperial effect of colonisation by the British, French, Dutch, Germans, Spanish and Portuguese, etc.

Cleaner water - that's environmental sure.

I've read that the greenhouse effect is nonesense and that this is just a periodic cycle that the Earth goes through, but hey who knows?

I know that Stem Cell research is banned in the US, but not by environmentalists, and that this could have far reaching benefits for mankind if given the proper funding.

Is the green movement wrong - on some issues maybe, but what about the rainforests, the plundering of the Ocean's resources, CO2 emissions, whaling, GM Foods, the Ivory Trade? The list goes on.

I'd be interested in what other people have to say as this is a topic i've never really thought too much about!  cool.gif



"The future's uncertain and the end is always near."

Jim Morrison

"When you laugh about people, so very, very lonely their only desire is to die, well I'm afraid it doesn't make me smile. I wish I could laugh. But that joke isn't funny anymore, it's too close to home and it's too near the bone... "

The Smiths

#3    Nax

Nax

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2003

  • It seemed like a good idea at the time...

Posted 25 November 2003 - 07:11 PM

QUOTE (Stamford @ Nov 25 2003, 03:55 PM)
I'd be interested in what other people have to say as this is a topic i've never really thought too much about!  cool.gif

That's the whole point of it Stamford, people don't think about it because it's come from the Green Movement, therefore it must be true. Even if the arguments put forward by them are emotive and not necessarily scientifically correct. But if you read the entire article/series there appears to be a hidden agenda to keep the 3rd world down where it is. Someone has to make the expensive trainers for next to nothing so pro sportspeople can get paid $million$ to advertise them  


#4    PurpleStuart

PurpleStuart

    Goth

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2002
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

  • The Most Purple Haired Gothic Hedonistic member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 25 November 2003 - 08:57 PM

I've heard a lot of things about the fact that the 'Greenhouse effect' has little basis on scientific fact. Most studies do suggest that it is a natural phenomena that happens to the earth and that although we do contribute to it, we don't make that much of a difference - 1 - 5% at most (this is a guess on my part, i don't have the figures to hand).

This is on the otherhand a VERY unpopular view to hold and has cost some scientists their jobs, so there are very few preponents of this. Everyone is so brought up on the idea to suggest something different is tantamount to heresy!

This does not mean we should just ignore it but at the same time we should proportion it the proper level of importance to it as opposed to the hysetrics of a decade ago when it first hit the news.  

never take me too seriously

#5    Stamford

Stamford

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined:30 Oct 2003
  • Location:Maybe It's because I'm a Londoner

  • Here's to better days

Posted 26 November 2003 - 11:40 AM

I agree that this is a very difficult subject.  crying.gif

The other thing to keep in mind is that it would be in the US's interests to discredit the green pressure groups.

The US is by far the biggest polluter (when you compare their population to the amount of Co2 emissions, etc) and Mr. Bush of course cancelled the Kyoto agreement that Clinton signed up to; not to mention the Oil (gas?) explopration of Alaska. All these are things that need to be brought to our attention - discredit the greens and you divert attention away from such issues.  whistling2.gif  

"The future's uncertain and the end is always near."

Jim Morrison

"When you laugh about people, so very, very lonely their only desire is to die, well I'm afraid it doesn't make me smile. I wish I could laugh. But that joke isn't funny anymore, it's too close to home and it's too near the bone... "

The Smiths

#6    PurpleStuart

PurpleStuart

    Goth

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2002
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

  • The Most Purple Haired Gothic Hedonistic member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 26 November 2003 - 09:19 PM

It would be a bad thing if the various Green parties in the world weren't around, as just because some of theclaims they make aren't based on scientific fact it shouldn't mean we stop taking care of the environment.

never take me too seriously

#7    doink

doink

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 113 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003

Posted 27 November 2003 - 01:52 AM

These views of no scientific basis for the Greenhouse effect and global warming really seemed to come out during the presidential election race, from George W. Bush. 90% of the scientific community disagreed with him. The thing is is that greenhouse and warming contribute to the widening hole in the Ozone layer, which has been proven to be growing over time. It is located over the Antarctic and has reached to South America and Australia, the last I'd heard. The effects of the hole is a dramatic loss of the worlds Phytoplankton, which feeds the fish, which feeds us. Also a growing number of five legged frogs, as well as canceruos frogs in South America. The hole can be healed but it needs Oxygen to do so, and the rainforests in South America provide a major source of the worlds oxygen. But the rain forests have been cut down for various reasons, mostly from U.S. industries.

The opinions of this article like to paint a picture of greedy greens, out to hold the third world countries down. How so? Placing policies on them to make sure they don't dump the waste from U.S. industries into the water? Emissions testing to make sure that American cars made in other countries does not choke the air? Let me ask you, if the emisions from your car don't harm anybody, what happens if you take a hose from the exhaust and put it into your window? If you live in a city, take a look at the horizon. What color is it? Take a trip to the country, or better yet the mountains. Does the sky look different?

The tobacco companies had their own scientists for years saying downplaying the harm cigarettes cause.


#8    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 27 November 2003 - 03:32 AM

Sceptics denounce climate science 'lie'
Thickening Ice Cap Gives Lie to Global Warming

I'm not saying the above are correct, but still its food for thought.


QUOTE
The hole can be healed but it needs Oxygen to do so, and the rainforests in South America provide a major source of the worlds oxygen. But the rain forests have been cut down for various reasons, mostly from U.S. industries.


i'm sorry, but thats a myth, Phytoplankton are the worlds major source of oxygen, 60% of it if i remember correctly.




#9    doink

doink

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 113 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003

Posted 27 November 2003 - 04:18 AM

Quote:
"i'm sorry, but thats a myth, Phytoplankton are the worlds major source of oxygen, 60% of it if i remember correctly."

my quote:
"The effects of the hole is a dramatic loss of the worlds Phytoplankton"

regardless of what exactly is the main source of oxygen, you've got a shortage of both. I can paste a bunch of sites here that support environmentalism, just like you can paste some that are against it, but you have to ask yourself what is the motivation behind these sites. Environmentalists want to hold third world countries down? How? Why? Anti-environmentalists want to have their way with the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the Earth you live on because environmentalism keeps them from making the most money possible. Environmentalists keep third world citizens from drinking clean water? Isn't that an oxymoron? How did the water get dirty in the first place? "Organizations that want clean air, clean water, a clean Earth are going to defeat their whole purpose because anybody that looks beyond their own pocketbooks is evil." Ha! It doesn't matter that the same people who spoon feed you your information run sweatshops in China, or any of these third world countries they are so valiantly "saving". Hey, you want to trust big business? Be my guest.

The next thing you'll try to sell me is that nuclear power is safe, clean, and efficient. Tell that to Karen Silkwood.

"You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of our grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children that we have taught our children that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. "

"Contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. "

-Chief Seattle


#10    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 27 November 2003 - 06:23 AM

geez don't shoot the messanger, all i was doing is showing some articles that present the "Other" sides view. I mean geez, to have a fair argument requires both sides to present points:)




#11    PurpleStuart

PurpleStuart

    Goth

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,118 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2002
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

  • The Most Purple Haired Gothic Hedonistic member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 27 November 2003 - 07:04 AM

QUOTE
These views of no scientific basis for the Greenhouse effect and global warming really seemed to come out during the presidential election race, from George W. Bush


This view was around far before then, but i can definately believe that Bush would have made use of this to further his own ends.
This is exactly what i was getting at  in my post above - just because there is no scientific basis proving we are causing the greenhouse doesn't mean we should carry on regardless, but instead thank our lucky stars for this (false) wake up call and start to look after the environment anyway.

never take me too seriously

#12    Stamford

Stamford

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined:30 Oct 2003
  • Location:Maybe It's because I'm a Londoner

  • Here's to better days

Posted 27 November 2003 - 09:46 AM

I agree!

Discrediting the Green movement is a good way of dodging responsibility for the mess the world is in.

I have an 18 month old son who is inheriting a world that is slowly being poisoned.

There was a report in The Independent (UK broadsheet) this week that said that tests are showing that our bodies carry trace elements from dozens of chemicals (including DDT!). Although not life threatening this still isn't right!

But these chemicals are now in the food chain. w00t.gif

We in the UK have had to deal with Mad Cows Disease in our burgers for God's sake - they were feeding cattle bred for human consumption with chicken and other animal plants. We need the enviromentalists (especially within the scientific community) to highlight these people who put money before their planet.



"The future's uncertain and the end is always near."

Jim Morrison

"When you laugh about people, so very, very lonely their only desire is to die, well I'm afraid it doesn't make me smile. I wish I could laugh. But that joke isn't funny anymore, it's too close to home and it's too near the bone... "

The Smiths

#13    doink

doink

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 113 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003

Posted 27 November 2003 - 11:50 AM

Stamford, you have a lot of good points. The most important is your child's safety. I also have children, and I want the best for them. I suppose that's the biggest reason why I take this issue so personally.

Another reason is that I am friends with a lot of people who are heavily involved in environmentalism. Sarah James, who heads the fight against drilling in the Arctic Wilderness preserve, is good friends with my wife. Her tribe is right there, some could use the money, but most don't want to see the land their children inherit spoiled. A best freind that I grew up with is in England studying the effects of pollution to the environment through genetics. The people I talk to everyday at sweatlodges and just hanging out pray for the environment, and all involved. I may not have all the facts straight, some of my sources are out of date, but I know when someone's out to get rich regardless of the consequences. My people have watched this destruction for long enough.

The third reason is that the Earth is my Mom, and I don't take kindly to people spitting on my Mom.

Here's a link concerning the Ozone depletion:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/effects.html

Here's another one on arctic ice and global warming, it's pretty balanced. You need real player to hear it but it's worth it, and you'll find all kinds of science stuff here:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2003/Oc...ur1_103103.html


#14    Stamford

Stamford

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined:30 Oct 2003
  • Location:Maybe It's because I'm a Londoner

  • Here's to better days

Posted 27 November 2003 - 12:42 PM

Doink, i read your links with great interest and have to say that this is deeply scary stuff!

Your right the planet is our Mother, a lot of people will dismiss this as "hippy nonsense", but that is just another way of putting people off of involvement and interest in "green" issues.

I don't even like the use of the word "green" when it comes to the rape of our planet - this is about our lives and, as you say, our children's.

Even when i take my little boy to the park i have to walk along a busy main road with trucks thundering past pumping out diesel fumes and under the flight path of jets coming in to land at Gatwick Airport and i am conscious that his litttle lungs are sucking in all this crap (of course i am not saying we shoudl ban road or air transport, but it cannot be doing any of us any good!).

Is there a hope of tackling the environmental problems in the future? Maybe, but with people like Bush willing to sacrafice the environment for the mighty dollar and people trying to discredit others for trying to take a stand i don't know.

I also read the other day that the UK has reduced it's yearly payout to protect the rainforests to help meet the war bill! Very depressing stuff.

sad.gif



"The future's uncertain and the end is always near."

Jim Morrison

"When you laugh about people, so very, very lonely their only desire is to die, well I'm afraid it doesn't make me smile. I wish I could laugh. But that joke isn't funny anymore, it's too close to home and it's too near the bone... "

The Smiths

#15    doink

doink

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 113 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003

Posted 27 November 2003 - 01:15 PM

Man, I wish you and your son the best of health. The fact you are conscious of these things says a lot about you, you're a great Dad. Have you had problems with him having ear infections? We live in Phoenix, Arizona, and my daughter has had a couple. The smog here is terrible. We spend a lot of time in the Navajo Nation, which is a lot better, and hopefully soon we'll be moving there. Anyways, a freind of mine moved to a mountainous area and her daughter hasn't had ear infections since, and she believes that they were caused by pollution. I myself never had an ear infection until I moved here as an adult. I grew up in Washington State, in the mountains.

I agree wholeheartedly about Bush, personally I voted for Nader.

This war has gone on long enough. We always pray for the safe return of our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters.

The "Hippie" attachment to the green party, and Native American beliefs, does tend to derail any seriousness to the matter. I think it mostly has to do with the drug association. I think Hippies had a great movement until they fell into drugs. Nobody takes somebody who uses drugs seriously, so listen up kids! Drugs make you stupid! You can't change the world if you are too busy tripping out!

Stamford, have a happy Thanksgiving, God bless you and yours!
  





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users