What the Green Movement got Wrong

A few weeks back, someone was talking about the nonsense that is spouted by socialists (I think it was socialists anyway) and the remarkable fact that their repeatedly being proved wrong appeared to have no discernable effects on their careers.

Later this week, there is a programme on Channel Four in which environmentalists will describe just how wrong they have been over the years. I don't suppose this will harm the careers of participants like Mark Lynas either.

There is a web page and discussion thread for the series, which is called What the Green Movement got Wrong.

Comments

[golf charley]

The shorter programme is titled what the Green movement got right.

I care about the environment, but the whole movement was hijacked by those envious of wealth and its creation.

With global warming they had a potential trump card, but with their over exaggerations, they have damned themselves, and their movement to the sidelines, and mockery.

Billions have been wasted, and no lives saved. But lots of environmentalists have made a lot of money! They will have to subsidise each other in future

[Phillip Bratby]

I shall watch with interest. I hope it's a good as the Great Global Warming Swindle, alos shown on Channel 4

[Roger Carr]

"There's enough radio-active material in all the world's missiles to power the planet for nigh on a 1000 years."

I didn't know that...

The five comments on the site Bishop Hill links to above held me, mesmerised. I hope they all live in the UK. I don't think I could stand the excitement if they are out here in the colony.

[Philip]

Are they are trying to offer up their objections to GM crops and nuclear energy in return for people's acceptance of their climate change beliefs? I’d be more impressed if they could stop politicising environmental problems altogether.

[Stuck-record]

Guardian gets excited about the release of climate change game that allows you to save the planet. You play as the head of a world government (hurrah! The socialist dream is finally made real), and you get to implement whatever policies are required to save the world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/31/climate-change-computer-game

Just wait for the special ad-on pack where you can build the death camps that will be necessary to save Gaia from those pesky climate-disruption deniers.

[confused]

HERE, HERE golf charley...my sentiments EXACTLY. (and yes I am shouting!)

This could be a golden opportunity for rational environmentalists to point out the joke of the science behind CO2 being the cause of climate change.

The £18 billion a year that is to be spent on wind power subsidies is a nail that we should drive into the hearts of the touchy feely guardianistas.

[confused]

Just think, if we paid £10 a head for grey squirrels, we could eliminate this alien species , AND create jobs ! ;-)

[Jerry]

Just think, if we paid £10 a head for grey squirrels, we could eliminate this alien species , AND create jobs ! ;-)

If this was the case I'd be first in line to set up a grey squirrel breeding farm!

If you don't rort the system, the system will rort you.

[confused]

Spoken like a true 'environmentalist'......;-) wind subsidies become squirrel subsidies but at least we'd get more than 28 jobs for our cash...

[Geckko]

They sertainly have got it wrong.

It's worse than we thought!!!!!!

[Copner]

@Stuck-record

Mass extermination isn't a future add-on pack - it's already in the game!

Although it's not limited to exterminating climate change deniers... you simply need to exterminate as many people as possible... a potentially winning strategy in the game is to use artificial killer viruses to solve the over-population problem!

[Lord Beaverbrook]

I wonder what sort of grant we could get to study the effects on biodiversity of huge vibrating concrete structures being erected in the oceans off our coast. Perhaps a preliminary study on a smaller scale would entice greater funds. Anyone know if Chequers has a lake or the HoC has a fish pond?

[John Shade]

They messed up on their humility, their humanity, and their sense of proportion.
Green is now the new Arrogant, the new Malevolent, and the new Stupid.

[simpleseekeraftertruth]

Whatever they do or do not admit to, the object will be to retain the moral high-ground. Anything that shows a late dawning of their acceptance of logic over dogma will be spun to show that this was nothing more than concern and therefore caution rightly pursued.
They are supremacists and in many cases, totalitarians. Environmentalism is their perfect cause as it allows their moral opinion to be pronounced on every aspect of human endeavour and behaviour. They are a cross that modern society has to bear and nothing more than that.

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

Still no mention of the population problem of the world. What is it now 6.5 billion, give or take 100 million?

[simon]

"in order to save the planet"

At the top of the list I'd put: believing they are God.

[Jack Hughes]

Budiansky cover this well on his blog post The Teflon Doomsayers:

Paul Ehrlich — who in addition to insisting in 1971 that the world had already lost the race to feed an expanding population and that mass starvation in the 1970s and 1980s would cause death rates to soar and world population to collapse to 2 billion, also declared around the same time that because of exposure to cancer-causing chemicals that had already occurred, "the U.S. life expectancy will drop to forty-two years by 1980, due to cancer epidemics."

then we see

In 1979, the biologist Norman Myers declared that a fifth of all species on the planet would be gone within two decades. This prediction was based upon . . . absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Budiansky lists dozens of these erroneous zones of the green movement.

[Brady]

"...the population problem of the world ...", this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. See Matt Ridley's new book, p212 especially, with this interesting reference:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7256/edsumm/e090806-10.html

Latest figures give 7 billion in 2013, maxing out at 9.75 billion in 2075. Later than the previous 2007 estimate of a maximum in 2050: ”Population may increase by another 2.8 billion by 2050 before it begins to fall, after which it could be 5.5 billion by 2100—which is 1 billion fewer people than are alive today - Glenn and Gordon, UN State of the Future Report 2007.

So there is a projection of a subsequent drop (after 2100?) to below today's levels. Now it seems that we might then have a slow rise in to a 2.05 birth rate. Population Problem? I wonder ;-)

[golf charley]

@Jack Hughes

The only correct prediction by Paul Ehrlich in 1971, was that in 40 years time it would be 2011, and that may just have been his only lucky guess, ever.

[Copner]

And more on that game...

I've just discovered as well as options to ban cars and celebrate austerity, it incorporates, a "Kill old people" option!

All for the good of the planet of course

See for yourself - review of the game here:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/05/07/set-the-world-on-fire-fate-of-the-world/

Top screenshot - left hand option - "The Carousel"
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/10/may/fate1lg.jpg

[Atomic Hairdryer]

Gobion’s environmental gaming industry expertise has led him to be appointed a “Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts” (FRSA) in 2008, a “Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society” (FRGS) and a "Fellow of the Royal Institution" (FRI) in 2010

WoW, they give out Fellowships for making video games now? If the model behind the game is moddable, it could be amusing. More amusing might be Wizards of the Coast(TM) objecting to some of the design elements. Pre-sale/early beta is often code for 'weve been burning our cash too fast and need some money NOW', which if buggy pre-release code is sold, typically kills off the developer. Which in this case may be no bad thing.

Nice example of what the green movement does wrong though, shamelessly exploit climate fears just as it's jumping the shark and scepticism is rising. At least this example shouldn't end up costing the taxpayer too much money.

[simpleseekeraftertruth]

@copner

I understood that was already ongoing.

http://data.gov.uk/dataset/excess_winter_deaths

[simpleseekeraftertruth]

@copner

I should have added;

"Britain has the highest number of avoidable deaths due to winter cold in Western Europe."

"The government's target of eradicating fuel poverty by 2016 will be in serious jeopardy if energy price rises go ahead"

August 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4656517.stm

[James P]

"repeatedly being proved wrong appeared to have no discernable effects on their careers"

The same is true for economists, of course...

[hunter]

@Jack Hughes,
The problem here in the USA is that our dear leader has pulled in his advisers from Ehrlich's list of disciples.

[sHx]

@golf charley
The only correct prediction by Paul Ehrlich in 1971, was that in 40 years time it would be 2011, and that may just have been his only lucky guess, ever.

Thanks for the LOLs.

[AC1]

U ∩ {What the Green Movement Got wrong} = U

[John Shade]

And when it comes to shirts, Green is the new Black.

The 10:10 splattergate gave insight into this urge to control and direct, and impose mindless obedience to 'authority'. Here is a thinner end of that particular wedge appearing in Australia: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warmists_put_norfolk_island_on_rations/

[Pete]

They ended up leaving the impression the rising tide of climate scepticism was due to the greens over egging the pudding on climate, DDT, nuclear, GM etc. then completely ignored climate science, went on to tell us we need nuclear and GM in the fight against climate change. All the "renegade" greens were climate alarmists trumpeting nuclear & GM foods. The "debate" afterwards was clearly stage managed to avoid any questioning of the premise for the alarmism in the first place.