Greens Misbehaving
Environmentalists and Greens
Introduction
Environmentalists show us a problem that is happening today and then take action to try and solve it. The Greens alert us to future problems (a minimum of 15 years away) and want us to act today to fix them. After fifteen years, we find there was no problem that needed fixing – it was an imaginary problem.
The Greens cannot be particularly good environmentalists because, in the past seventy years, none of their global problems have been real. Meanwhile, environmentalists are solving real local or country specific problems year after year.
Is this incompetence, or were the Greens using fear of a problem to achieve other goals. What are these goals?
The Greens’ leadership are authoritarians who want to get rid of democracies and remove most of our personal freedoms. They want to set up a one party state controlled by the Green elite (Their word not the authors).
They wish to destroy industrialisation and all the benefits that came with it and take us back to an agrarian age. They are anti human and talk of killing billions of humans by the year 2050.
The Green leadership are a significant part of the ‘guilt’ industry, scaring us with Armageddon stories which they blame on humans and industrialisation. They are judgemental, lack balance, only see the negatives and are blind to the positives.
Their primary aim is to control our lives.
Most Green supporters have difficulty in agreeing with these statements. They need to look at the difference between Greta Thunberg and Boyan Slat above then read Reading 5.4.1 and the following quotes from the Green Leadership.
Many “Green Followers’ are not “Greens” but are “Environmentalists” who incorrectly believe the two labels are the same and are interchangeable. Because of this misunderstanding, they feel uncomfortable when they are shown all the failures and behaviour faults of the Greens.
They are unlikely to have an open mind and accept such criticism, because they believe they are criticising themselves. Many will say “You are probably right, but I don’t like pollution and I want clean water in the rivers and that’s why I believe in global warming.”
They are now talking about worthwhile environmental concerns that can be addressed. However, the Green global warming campaign is very different with different goals and cannot be connected to these environmental concerns.
So Green Followers need to realign themselves into the Environmentalists’ camp as the criticism of the Greens in this web page will be harsh.
Before we start looking at the Greens’ misbehaviour, we need to be convinced that there is a difference between Environmentalists and the Greens. Reading 5.4.1 broadly summarises the differences.
The Green Movement
“All revolutions are conceived by idealists, implemented by fanatics, and its fruits are stolen by scoundrels.” -Thomas Carlyle
The Green Movement can be divided into three; the Green Leadership, the Green Supporters and finally all the Green Followers. The Green leadership are Carlyle’s “fanatics” and the followers are the “dreamers or idealists”.
The Green Followers are generally Environmentalists who haven’t got a clue what the Green Leadership is trying to do. They support the Greens because they believe they are supporting the Environmental Movement – they aren’t.
The Green Supporters are those who actively work in hundreds of Green organisations around the World. Even here, you will find environmentalists who do not understand the authoritarian goals of the Green Leadership. However, most will start to see what the leadership plans for the human race.
The criticism of the Green behaviour on this website is predominantly aimed at the Green Leadership but does include those Green Supporters who are aware of the social engineering goals of that leadership.
Before focusing on the Green leadership a short discussion on the unusual behaviour of Green Followers is needed
Green Followers
Unbeknown to them, the Green Followers can also misbehave.
In the 1950s, social psychologist Leon Festinger and his colleagues embedded themselves in a cult led by a doomsday prophet named Dorothy Martin. The cult members believed that spacemen called the “Guardians” were coming to collect them in flying saucers to save them from a coming flood that would destroy humanity.
Like all doomsday stories before this one, no spacemen or flood ever came. Dorothy Martin would respond by revising her predictions after talking to the “Guardians”. For some reason, the Guardians only communicated through Martin. The cult followers were told “Sure, the spacemen didn’t show up today, but they were sure to come tomorrow, and so on.”
The researchers watched in fascination as the believers kept on believing, despite all the evidence that they were wrong. Not only were they ignoring reality, as each prediction failed, counterintuitively, their beliefs became stronger rather than raising doubts and becoming weaker.
In their book about their study “When Prophecy Fails”, Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schacter wrote;
“Tell him you disagree, and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. Suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.”
Festinger developed the theory of “Cognitive Dissonance” to explain what was happening. In short, it is a way of dealing with the extreme discomfort of simultaneously holding two thoughts (i.e., a belief and reality) that are in conflict. Reality will be avoided or ignored. It was a wonderful example of group irrationality.
The parallels between Martin’s Guardian Cult and the Green followers today are stunning. As each Green prediction fails, a Green follower will never acknowledge the failure, or discuss it, and will ignore it grasping for another prediction to sustain their irrational beliefs. If challenged they will attack the person or ignore the facts or figures while demanding their source so that person can be attacked.
The discomfort of seeing their beliefs clashing with reality results in cognitive dissonance. This explains the Green followers’ continued beliefs over decades in the face of more than a dozen failed Green campaigns over seventy years. In the Global Warming campaign with hundreds of failed predictions in the past forty years being ignored, they irrationally claim that most, if not all, the predictions have been correct.
For example, while standing on a New York freeway that Dr. James Hansen (NASA scientific advisor to Al Gore) himself had predicted would be under metres of water, Hansen stated he still believes all his predictions are correct even the one about the freeway he was standing on. We should start to get concerned about scientists’ behaviour when they can no longer look reality in the face.
This disregard of facts, logic and reality supports this web sites’ views that Western citizens are increasingly becoming more irrational and are fast losing their critical thinking skills.
If this becomes widespread, as occurred in the 16th century when societies believed in witchcraft, then collectively the ‘misbehaviour’ of the Green followers can cause serious damage to our society.
We now turn to the Green Leadership who are constantly “misbehaving”.
The Green Leadership’s Goals
The following quotations from different members of the Green leadership should give you a better idea of where we are being led. They show that the primary goals of the Green leadership are social engineering and not environmental. They also display the authoritarian views of these leaders.
First, quotations showing their anti-human ideas and why they wish to kill billions of us. However, they might make an exception for the Green elite (Their words not the authors).
Boy They Don’t Like Us Much
“We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.” – Carl Amery
“To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.” – Lamont Cole
“Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby.” – Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists, Australian Physicist.
“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.” – Economist editorial
“We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.” – David Foreman, Earth First!
“I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” – Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
“If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS.” – Earth First! Newsletter
“Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” – David Graber, biologist, National Park Service
“The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” – Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
“If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” – Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.” – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP & IPCC founder.
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” – Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth – social and environmental.” – Ingrid Newkirk, former President of PETA
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” – Club of Rome, Consultants to the United Nations
“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.” – Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumour.” – Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” – Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.“ – Sir James Lovelock, Grandfather of Global Warming, BBC Interview
Now that they have got that off their chest – get out the killing machine.
“Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.” – Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995, Poverty For “Those People”
“One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” – Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
“To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.” – Lamont Cole
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible by 2050.” – United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” – Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels by 2050, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
Less Harsh Social Engineering
On two visits to Sydney Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) being interviewed by the press, stated: “We can no longer afford to have democracies. We must set up one party (authoritarian) governments that are based on the Chinese style of government.”
This lady also has told the press several times between 2013 to 2019 that: “the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.” Adding “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” then stating: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
Professor Clive Hamilton was a Green candidate in the 2007 Australian Federal election stated; “You should realise that if the Greens gain power,they will get rid of our present democracy and set up a one-party state. In addition, you should prepare yourself to lose 85% of your personal freedoms.” He then went off script and railed against women shopping – promising he would stop them shopping once he was elected.
Canada’s Environment Minister–Christine Stewart, believing she was talking to newspaper reporters and their editors “off the record” stated: “No matter that the science of global warming is all phony….climate change [provides]the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world”. Reported by Terence Corcoran, “Global Warming: The Real Agenda”, Financial Post, 26 December 1999.
When Al Gore was told that there were some geo-engineers who believed they could cool the planet and save the human race, he was appalled. “No, we don’t want a technical fix, we need global warming so we can force people to live a lifestyle that we believe in.”
A Green Leader being interviewed about “Food Miles” on the BBC, September 2005. “We are using ‘food miles’ as mechanism to empty cities and drive the population out into the countryside. …. here everyone will live in a self sustaining villages for their whole life. …we have identified narrow corridors for human habitation which only uses 10% of the country. You will not be allowed out of the village even to visit the nearest village … you will be given a bicycle but only the Green elite will be allowed to travel in cars or aircraft” In the next twenty minutes, the Greens’ plan of draconian control of British citizens was explained.
Then the IPCC – source of gold standard science for governments – who are not meant to give policy advice states;
The IPCC “finds”we should reorient our individual lifestyles away from consumption. We should focus on sharing assets, choose free time rather than working on for wealth, choose quality rather than quantity, and increase freedom while containing consumption. Reduce our dependence on transport by setting up regional economies, replacing international air travel and heavy road transport with sailing ships and bicycles.” Lomborg, Bjorn, Cool It, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2007, pp.140-141, Quoting IPCC’s report 2001.
Most might be confused by such a “finding” by a Panel investigating problems caused by the weather. However, you still might smile when we are told that we should “give up work and increase freedom” and this will defeat climate Armageddon.
Conclusion
The quotes above might start to give you a better feeling about the differences between environmentalists and Greens. We might not want to call Greens “friends with benefits (FWB)” anymore – especially if they are about to kill us!
Maybe we should pay a little more attention to the Green Leadership’s words, rather than blindly and unthinkingly accepting everything the Green “pied piper” tells us.
The Greens hide behind the ‘skirts’ of environmentalism and science to achieve their social engineering aims, so there will always be some tenuous connections made to these ‘skirts’. Having read all the quotes above, you don’t hear any discussion of stopping rising sea levels, catastrophic storms, saving the planet, humans and all other species etc.etc. They have more important social engineering work on which to focus.
In “The Crux” page we learnt there was no logical or scientific basis to the Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming campaign. Consequently, it should not surprise us that the Greens will not hesitate to lie, mislead and deceive us to keep their campaign alive. The following sections discusses this misbehaviour.
The Green Leaders’ Methodology
As authoritarians, how does the Green Leadership operate? They have a lifestyle that they want to force upon us. Since many of us do not like this lifestyle, they have to manipulate and deceive us in a way that will encourage us to accept the new lifestyle. They are confidant that they can do so because of our increasing irrationality and lack of critical thinking skills.
Why are they so confident? They have deceived us more than half a dozen times in previous campaigns. Consequently their deception skills have improved at the same time as our irrationality has increased. Why wouldn’t they be confident?
Their strategy is indirect but otherwise simple. They create a problem and focus on the negatives, generally exaggerating them. Their approach is unbalanced as they avoid looking at any positives. If forced to, they minimise any positives.
To have us do what they want, they use deception. They produce a unbalanced campaign that focuses on the means of production rather than focusing on the products. They ensure the changes happen slowly so most of us don’t recognise what is happening. An example.
Rather than stepping into a house and telling the occupants (coercion) that they can no longer have running water (the product) for their toilets, bathrooms, kitchen and laundries – they attack the dams (the means of production). With an unbalanced campaign they will start slowly to vilify the dams pointing out the damage they cause, while avoiding, at all costs, looking at the product – running water in our houses. We cannot be allowed to realise that once all the dams are gone we will not have running water in our houses – something completely unacceptable to us.
Soon we will be convince that dams are bad and continue to complain to the politicians and, eventually, we will stop any new dams being built. Then after more time, the existing dams will be vilified with the intention of having them removed (as has happened to some dams in America). If not removed, the campaign will ensure they are not replaced as they grow older.
Have you ever heard a discussion about how we can have running water in our homes (the other side of the coin), as the campaign against dams rages on ? If not, why not?
Reading 5.1.1A expands on how the Green Leadership operates.
Lack of Discussion
The Green Movement has a problem when it comes to talking about global warming in most audiences. Global Warming is a ‘Henny Penny’ tale that has no scientific or logical basis and, as such, cannot be defended in a rational way. So they will not tolerate questions that show any inkling of disagreement. The only time you hear Greens having a polite conversation is to “believers of the cause” or to people who are willing to listen to an unending one way conversation with no other discussion allowed.
Dissent must be crushed.
An agnostic approached a group of Greens picketing outside a building in Canberra in the hope that someone in the group could educate him on a small point that he did not understand but one that both Green and sceptical scientists had agreed upon for some years. He started by saying “I was wondering if one of you could help me…..”, and got no further. The group surged forward and started abusing him using terms as “killer of children”, “worse than a pedophile”, “a tool of big oil” etc. A tall man towered over him as he “shirt fronted” the agnostic.
Then a short robust woman squeezed in between the two males, stood on her toes and spat in the face of the agnostic. Welcome to a calm rational discussion with the Greens on a point that is agreed by both sceptics and the Greens. The agnostic might have been asking where was the nearest bus stop – but he wasn’t allowed to finish a sentence.
Disappointed that his question was not going to be answered, he turned away while the crowd told him that they would; “catch up with him and kill him”, “follow him home and burn his house down” and “butcher his wife and children in front of him.” Welcome to a calm rational discussion with the Greens.
Later, the agnostic would find that most of these endearing labels thrown at him as he walked away were created by the Green Movement, media or politicians and other luminaries. For example, an editor of Forbes magazine thought he could enhance the status of the magazine by publishing a report by a Green reporter who opined that Deniers should be identified and then tracked and finally followed home where their house would be burnt down.
More than half a dozen Professors from “prestigious universities” have called for sceptics to be either shot dead, burnt alive, placed in mental asylums and drugged so they could not communicate with anyone. Good to see they are protecting freedom of expression and embrace robust debate in our universities.
Two well known major Green organisations have made five minute video clips to “discuss” the issue. The first has a teenager with half his face covered by his ‘hood’ in a darken room railing against deniers for ‘killing the planet’ and destroying their future. He ends up saying the younger generation would no longer accept this and they would cut the throats of deniers as they slept in their beds at home.
The second video starred Gillian Anderson as a primary school teacher quizzing each student to identify those whose parents were ‘deniers’. Once identified, she hit a large red button and the children were blown to pieces with their body parts landing in the hair and on the desks of all the other students.
The Australian Capital Territory home of Australia’s capital Canberra uses taxpayers money to support the arts. A play titled “Kill Climate Deniers” was funded with little comment. Reading 5.1.1B. Consider what would happen if any one of the following plays were funded. Do we have two standards here?
- Kill Gays
- Kill Women
- Kill Single Mothers
- Kill Muslims
- Kill Aborigines
- Kill Refugees
- Kill Boat People
- Kill Politicians
I am sure no one would say anything about these plays, fearing they would be accused of hypocrisy. Or would they?
Once again, welcome to a calm rational discussion on this issue with the Greens.
Moving away from mortal coercion, there are a variety of other crude ways of silencing perceived dissent. For example;
The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of man made catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists
Scientists are no longer willing to speak out fearing denigration, having their professionalism impugned, loss of research funding, or loss of tenure. Biased research is encouraged and funding is withheld if adverse scientific findings are published. Publishers considering publishing opposing views, are either discouraged or threatened with the withdrawal of multiple Green authors from the publishing house.
Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a skeptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted,” Ball concluded33.
Janet Albrechtsen, a journalist, commenting on the idea of schools introducing courses on global warming shows her concerns:
There are plenty of reasons for concern on this score. Adults have barely engaged in a grown-up conversation over the causes of global warming. Debate over the what, how, why, and when on global warming has been drowned out by hysteria. Global warming has been cleverly framed as the big moral issue of our time to quarantine it from debate.
Even conservative politicians shy away from suggesting scepticism because anyone who is a sceptic is labelled a denier. If you disagree with some of the science, and the religious fervour it has fueled, or even evince a level of agnosticism towards it, you are not just wrong. You are a bad person forced to defend your integrity as well as your arguments. This is an old trick, but a good one. Given that stultifying atmosphere among adults, it is a stretch to imagine that classroom talk will be different34.
Authorities from all walks of life are warned not to speak out against the Green orthodoxy unless they wish to be denigrated or demonised.
Respected academic Don Aitkin has seen the ugly side of the climate change debate after being warned he faced demonisation if he challenged the accepted wisdom that global warming poses a danger to humanity. Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was “out of his mind” by some in the media after writing that the science of global warming “doesn’t seem to stack up”. He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly ignored or attacked because “scientist activists” from a quasi-religious movement have spread a flawed message that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”35.
Finally, when anyone persists with any scepticism, they are virulently attacked in the strongest way37
“Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy’s son, who grew hoarse from shouting. “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.
Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry”.
The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” Yvo de Boer’s comments came at the opening of a week long conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.
We might think that this is all exaggerated, and the Greens do not use fear as a weapon. Well why do children cry fearing death by global warming? Why do scientists seek anonymity to express their views in only this scientific area? Why are prominent people “warned off” from speaking their minds in public on this issue?
We challenge anyone to strongly air any criticism of the Greens in any social gathering and observe how you and your views are treated.
All dissent must be crushed.
Lying
“A lie can go around the World twice before the Truth can get its boots on.”
– James Watt
The Greens will not hesitate to lie, deceive and mislead us. For example, they lied when they told us:
- On day one, that “the science is settled”. Forty years later it is still not settled. It is only settled for those who want to lie to us. Reading 5.4.2
- On day one, that “all the scientists agree”. Hundreds of thousands of scientists disagreed. Reading 5.4.3 plus other Readings in “The Crux” page.
- On day one, that “It is time to act, and to act now.” It wasn’t the time to act because the science was not settled, all the scientists did not agree, and this campaign had all the hallmarks of previous Green Armageddon stories which had all failed.
- When the floating Arctic ice melted there would be catastrophic sea level rises. There would be zero sea level changes. As explained in “The Swamp” Page 1, this defies the buoyancy laws. The sea levels would be going up and down like a ‘yo-yo’ each year if the Greens were right.
- Melting ice from the mountain ranges around the World was enough to cause catastrophic sea level rise – there is not enough ‘available ice” to do that. Reading 5.4.4
- Melting Antarctic and Greenland ice would cause catastrophic sea level rises. The temperature in both the Antarctic and Greenland is minus 33oC and minus 15oC respectively. Even the most alarmist predictions of temperature rises will not cause this ice to melt.
- Greenland and Antarctic glaciers calving into the sea will cause catastrophic sea level rises. The effect is so small it is not noticeable. Reading 5.4.5
- Global warming is already causing an increase in the number and severity of catastrophic storms. Since 1900, the additional thermal energy to produce such an increase in catastrophic storms is less than a quarter of one per cent. The insignificant change (e.g. 1.5mls extra rain per annum, and an increase of less than 1kph in wind speeds) cannot be discerned from the very large natural variations in a year. See “The Swamp”- Page 1.