NOTE: This article appeared in the Los Angeles Times today, and given it is generally left leaning, I’m surprised to see it printed there. I have posted an except and a link to the original below.
The Church of Green
 |
Jonah Goldberg: May 20, 2008
No doubt for millions of Americans this is a distinction without a difference, as the two words are usually used interchangeably. But they’re different things, and the country would be better off if we sharpened the distinctions between both word and concept.
Environmentalism’s most renewable resources are fear, guilt and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past. John Muir, who laid the philosophical foundations of modern environmentalism, described humans as “selfish, conceited creatures.” Salvation comes from shedding our sins, rejecting our addictions (to oil, consumerism, etc.) and demonstrating through deeds an all-encompassing love of Mother Earth. Quoth Al Gore: “The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”
I heard Gore on NPR the other day. He was asked what he made of evangelical pastor Joseph Hagee’s absurd comment that Hurricane Katrina was God’s wrath for New Orleans’ sexual depravity. Naturally, Gore chuckled at such backwardness. But then the Nobel laureate went on to blame Katrina on man’s energy sinfulness. It struck me that the two men were not so different. If only canoodling residents of the Big Easy had adhered to “The Greenpeace Guide to Environmentally Friendly Sex.“
Whether it’s adopted the trappings of religion or not, my biggest beef with environmentalism is how comfortably irrational it is. It touts ritual over reality, symbolism over substance, while claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Amazing! A journalist with a brain!
And I’m sure it appeared on the front page.
Still you have to give them credit. Yesterday I commented on the budding climate change now taking hold IN THE MEDIA. Maybe I’m being premature. But maybe some jounalists are indeed waking up to the adverse side effects, the real harm, of this low carbon, hysteria-driven pipe dream, and are now pulling the emergency brake.
Jonah is a syndicated columnist, and is the LAT’s token conservative. It certainly didn’t please the libs when they began to carry his columns, and we certainly cannot transfer anything he writes to the LAT itself. His recent book, Liberal Fascism, was a surprise best seller.
I wrote on this same subject about a week ago. I don’t want to be part of that environmentalist crowd:
http://depriest-mpu.blogspot.com/2008/05/anti-humanist-aka-environmentalist.html
Jonah is an awsome writer and a great true conservative. I throughly enjoyed “Liberal Facsism.” He’s also a contributing editor to Nation Review and frequently has his columns appear in Townhall. He’s certainly, as Basil said, no more than the token conservative at the LAT.
It’s an op-ed, so I wouldn’t get too excited. Sort of like Saffire and the NYT.
Jonah is a conservative?
I didn’t know that. The whole time I thought the LAT was changing tunes. How stupid of me! Yes, I should have known better.
Evan, you are right.
And I am embarassed.
But the op-ed kicks a$$!
Anthony, thank you for posting it.
Anthony and all- As one of the many regular visitors who have discovered this site only in the last few months and (up until now) had silently soaked up both information and wisdom, I felt compelled to comment today after having read Jonah Goldberg’s editorial in the LAT this morning. Minutes later was delighted to see that you already had posted the column and link, and that a discussion was brewing. Well written, thoughtful editorials that speak truth about an issue many care about but few really understand go a long way toward making a reasonable person think twice about the basis for his or her beliefs. To that end Goldberg and others can help pave the way to sanity re: the truth about Earth’s climate and its issues. I can feel a tide of thought and reconsideration turning, a human PDO shift starting to take hold. I’ve noticed that in the last few weeks the big AGW tv ad blitz has dramatically dropped off (at least in the LA media market). Have others noticed this?
REPLY: Thanks for the kind words. I have noticed less TV ads on the History and Discovery Channel as of late. May be polar bear related.
Check out the latest from Lubos:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/31072-american-scientists-against-agw.html
A little under the belt. But hey, goes with the territory.
I didn’t know Robert Kennedy Jr. was so qualified in climate science. Wasn’t he an associate of Dr. Tim O’Leary or something?
We could also add Sen. Ted Kennedy to the list, but given the current circumstances, I’ll show the decency and respect of refraining from such a dirty prank.
Get well soon Senator. I mean it.
Goldberg hits the nail squarely on the head.
P.S. I too am surprised this ran in the L.A. times. Their editorial department is so rabidly left wing you can nearly hear the spittle dripping off the page.
These kinds of articles, much like this blog, when written well and supported appropriately without attempting to out-scream opponents will have a modifying effect on the alarmist claims. As much as the public seems to devour the doomsday scenarios, it really wants reassurance that everything will be all right. When fighting the zeitgeist, it’s important to be steady, calm, knowledgeable, and friendly. Being correct in your opinions seals the deal.
Environmentalism is just a different group using a different mantra to control the rest of us. Every religion is that way no matter doctrine they subscribe to.
I’ve always been interested in taking care of the land and water. People who have roots in farming and ranching always are. What chaps my butt are the “environmentalists” who don’t know diddly about an environment other than urban that needlessly cause wildlife habitat to be destroyed by opposing grazing, hunting, and forest management to include controlled burns and thinning of the underbrush.
Pierre said: “Maybe I’m being premature. But maybe some jounalists are indeed waking up to the adverse side effects, the real harm, of this low carbon, hysteria-driven pipe dream, and are now pulling the emergency brake.”
Not in your lifetime, Pierre! They’re simply waking up to the fact their already low credibility is about to take another plunge! Soon, they’ll have to look up to see bottom.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
By the way, if you really want to know who the LAT really caters to, read some of the “feedback” statements their readers posted. Jonah is definitly their token conservative.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Unrelated to Jonah’s column … there are at least two factions amongst the AGWers. The CO2-only faction & the manifold-cause researchers. V. Ramanathan and Charlie Zender, for instance, agree with the CO2-only faction that CO2 will cause unprecedented warming. But their work on the heating effects of soot (tropospheric soot and dirty snow, respectively) are largely ignored by the IPCC CO2-centric faction.
Case in point:
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/04/black-and-white-aerosols-show.html
Climate Resistance interviews top-name AGWers V. Ramanathan (of INDOEX fame) and Greg Carmichael about the new-found total heating effects of aerosols (esp. soot, or black carbon)
This as opposed to Bob Ward’s letter condemning the “Great Global Warming Swindle:”
The evidence of a net heating effect against sooty brown clouds has been mounting since at least 2000:
And I am embarrassed.
No need to be. Sometimes a seed can grow. Look at Tierney. He might be the one to swing the NY Times over on global warming.
The elites who read these papers are not going to be too eager to “eat less” because of misplaced environmental concerns.
I’ve noticed that in the last few weeks the big AGW tv ad blitz has dramatically dropped off (at least in the LA media market). Have others noticed this?
I want you to go to your window and shout, “I’m as cold as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”
I’m an environmentalist, most definitely, and I agree with the following from the article: “John Muir… described humans as “selfish, conceited creatures.” ”
That being said, I still like hanging around with you guys… 🙂
The religous aspect goes beyond the unthinking, irrationalism that pervades the Green movement. It is deeply tied in with the belief that the United Nations is the font of all that is good and wise in the world. The parallel being with Rome in the medieval church. Portrayed as the source of all that was wise and true, it was in fact a cesspool of vice.
The whole AGW bandwagon didn’t get rolling until the UN got in on the act. To challenge AGW is to challenged the authority of the UN, which is the real heresy in the eyes of the true believers.
swampie (15:53:13): What chaps my butt are the “environmentalists” who don’t know diddly about an environment other than urban that needlessly cause wildlife habitat to be destroyed by opposing grazing, hunting, and forest management to include controlled burns and thinning of the underbrush.
Back off, swampie; we own the intellectual property rights to that stuff in Australia.
The UN has authority?
Philip B wrote: “The whole AGW bandwagon didn’t get rolling until the UN got in on the act. To challenge AGW is to challenged the authority of the UN, which is the real heresy in the eyes of the true believers.”
Although the time line is a bit fuzzy, it appears Teller started the AGW agenda with anti fossil fuel campaign in order to promote his not-so-hidden pro-nuclear agenda.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
REPLY: Jack that’s true. Teller was on the Atomic Energy Commission and they started to demonize coal back then to push nuclear power plants. One of the tools used was a national magazine ad campaign that had a lump of coal with a statement like “coal is dirty, nuclear energy is clean” along with CO2 and soot being described as the dirty products of coal produced power.