Is the environmental movement antihuman?
Firstly, I think "climate change" is nonsense, simple logic and common sense impairs the entire assumption. From the beginning of time, the climate has always changed. For instants, we had the ice age, which was major climate change; however, there was nothing emitting harmful toxins, let alone an SUV or a power plant. Therefore I believe it’s just natural, not human caused. And, the fact that "global warming" was introduces by Al Gore (a politician, not a scientist) and enthused by George Soros sets of many alarm bells.
Then there’s the scientific aspect of the climate change argument, which seems to be scarce in debates. Let’s be realistic, lots of scientists have come out to support the hockey stick graph, and lots of scientists remain skeptical due to lack of facts and moot data. If you can recall, emails were leaked and appeared in The New York Times regarding “unfortunate” data that could not account for the lack of “warming”, then the data was asked to be skewed to fit the climate change hypothesis. Now they’re convincing people that all the natural monstrosities, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and yes cooling are the results of global warming. The fact is, climate change is hardly a settled science; the hypothesis is inconsistent and is constantly remolded to reflect the current status of weather. If you look at Antarctica, the ice sheets are indeed growing and thickening, not melting (reference The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report). This is just one of many moot data points that are the pillars of the climate change argument.
I could debate for hours about the falsity of the climate change hypothesis. For your sake I’ll move on to the question: Would you agree that the environmental movement is subsequently anti human?
Let’s take the Discovery Channel incident, where a guy held up the building with explosives demanding the Discovery Channel adjust its programming and become a bit more apocalyptic on the issue of global warming/climate change. He claimed that the environment is too unstable to withstand the rate of population; and his brilliant solution was that we find a way to decrease the population; he also referred to infants as parasites. A quick side note, he was influenced by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” (I’m not blaming Al Gore, I’m just pointing it out). So he’s essentially putting the whole of the environment ahead of evil mankind.
Let’s take another case. In California, is illegal to destroy or "harm" an eagle’s egg. However, abortion, a living person, may be poisoned, and to help, the taxpayer may pay for the expenses. So, that means, an eagle’s egg is protected by the law of California, but an infant is not.
The fact is, environmentalists regard the environment obviously as the greatest priority (or even more extreme, a god figure) and man is least significant, therefore may be killed if it means to save a small portion of the environment.
To close, I want to point out a paradox. Environmentalists usually are among those advocating for equality economically and the redistribution of wealth. However, studies show that the more wealth a nation is the higher the longevity of life. So, that implies that, if longevity is high, the living conditions must also be exceptionally good (a good environment).
My conclusion: Climate change is natural, and is not unique in any way and cannot be a fault of man. Change is a constant in the cycle of time. Furthermore, those advocating for environmentalists principles are quite honestly gullible people (slight exaggeration), subscribing to a dangerous, anti human scheme, used as a tool by politician as a power grab in the ever expanding nanny state.
THANK YOU my essay is written below: