Global Warming:
Socialism’s Trojan Horse

by Eric Englund

On February 14, 2002, President Bush provided details for his plan to combat global warming. The cornerstone of his plan is to promote voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Naturally, environmentalists were outraged that President Bush refused to adhere to the Kyoto Treaty. It is President Bush’s contention that the Kyoto protocol would cost nearly 5,000,000 jobs in the U.S. alone. Of course, environmentalists claimed that there is a bigger picture here. All people, especially those living in industrialized countries such as the U.S., must sacrifice in order to win the universal struggle against global warming. As we have seen over the past three decades, environmentalists have succeeded in eroding property rights in the United States in order to protect Mother Earth as they see fit (i.e. through the Clean Water Act, through the Endangered Species Act, through ridiculous wetlands legislation, through air quality laws, etc). Whether or not President Bush understands this, the real struggle is between liberty and totalitarianism. For if environmentalists succeed in gradually taking away our private property rights, then a free market and liberty cannot exist. Thus, it is my contention that the struggle against environmentalism is actually a struggle for liberty (using the classical liberal definition).

Undoubtedly, environmentalists will take exception to being called illiberal socialists (but I repeat myself). Perhaps there are those of you who are alarmed about global warming and sympathize with the environmental/green movement. My response is for you to be careful with whom you associate; which leads me to provide the following quote from Dr. George Reisman’s magnum opus Capitalism:

…it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the freedom and well-being of the individual.

So who are these former Reds who have converted to Green Socialism? One excellent example is Mikhail Gorbachev. Mr. Gorbachev is now the president of Green Cross International (a non-governmental environmental organization). Among the many issues with which Green Cross International has become involved, global warming is right at the top of its list. Gosh, when Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher became so chummy in the mid-1980s, I never once heard the Soviet dictator express concern about the environment. Clearly, Mr. Gorbachev has identified environmentalism as a Trojan horse capable of resurrecting socialism on a global scale.

...snipped by moderator TS1

February 22, 2002

Eric Englund [send him mail], who has an MBA from Boise State University, is a surety bond underwriter in Bellevue, WA.

© 2002 LewRockwell.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL>....you guys never cease to amaze me....now, if you are concerned with the enviroment you are a COMMIE????

hoo boy....this is the best one yet.

The most long winded one too.

It is those of us who benefit from the fruits of Western Civilization that are being turned into enemies in the daily sociological and political discourse of environmentalists. Americans, including President Bush, must come to understand that environmentalism is a serious threat. If we succumb to the global warming propaganda being thrust upon us daily (with our left-wing press wittingly or not being used as the primary tool of terror/propaganda), then Green Socialism stands a chance of dismantling Western Civilization and throwing us back into the dark ages. Our rights to life, liberty, and property are at stake here.


sheesh...read his closing statement....lol

and the writer claims to hold an "MBA" which i can only conclude, (after reading the above) means he's a Master Bullshit Artist

Imagine all the work he had to go to to get that MBA, and my next door neighbor only has to walk out into the pasture for the same 'reward'.

[quote="mga"]LOL>....you guys never cease to amaze me....now, if you are concerned with the enviroment you are a COMMIE????

hoo boy....this is the best one yet.[/quote]

Let me put this another way. Does ANYONE think that Dick Cheney's prior ties to Halliburton in NO WAY influence him or his decisions in his current 'job' as VP? What if, after they leave office, GW and DC found an environmental organization called "Conservatives for conservation". Might you look at it with some skepticism? Doesn't it concern you that someone like Gorbachev (still a believer in communism/socialism) gained such a prestigous position in such an influential group? Do you not see the similarities between the 'environmetal' movement and socialism/communism? Mainly that they both seem to be targeting private property.

..and condoleeza rice was a CEO at chevron...you get used to it.

i can't asnwer your question because it's hypothetical..."what if" gives way too much margin to change things in any story.

[quote="mga"] ..and condoleeza rice was a CEO at chevron...you get used to it.

i can't asnwer your question because it's hypothetical..."what if" gives way too much margin to change things in any story. [/quote]

You're dead-on w/the CR reference. If you look at practically ALL cabinets, in almost ALL administrations you'll find that they are chock-full of these types of 'unholy' alliances between govt and business. And, I asked that hypothetical Q because I find it a useful way of clarifying a postion or making a point. C'mon, you wouldn't have at least SOME 'automatic' skepticism if GW/DC started up "Conservatives for Conservation"?

"Conservatives for Conservation"?


aren't you a member of that already?

your position on global warming seems right in line with the conservative's viewpoints.

back to the original question:

1. is global warming a fact or not? (your opinion)
2. what do YOU think is causing it? (if your answer to #1 is yes)

[quote="mga"][b]"Conservatives for Conservation"?
[/b]

[quote]aren't you a member of that already?[/quote]

Ha,ha, that WAS a good one! No, not yet--I haven't saved up enough money to purchase my membership card, yet.

[quote]your position on global warming seems right in line with the conservative's viewpoints.[/quote]

Actually, its right in line with my belief system--more govt regulations and less individual freedom (and don't be mistaken about THAT being the purpose behind the push for Kyoto) is almost never a good thing.


back to the original question:

1. is global warming a fact or not? (your opinion)
2. what do YOU think is causing it? (if your answer to #1 is yes)[/quote]

1. No, I don't think gw can be said to be a scientific fact. I can't say there isn't ANY evidence that can be stated otherwise, just that it can't be conclusively proven.
2. As I stated in prior posts, if climate change is occuring, I doubt mankind is playing a significant role in it.

Let me ask you a few Q's:

1. Do you agree that Earth has gone through climatic changes (sometimes drastic) in the past?
2. Do you agree that most of these periods occured before mankind's use of fossil fuels (stated, today, as the culprit for global warming)?
3. Might it not be reasonable to deduce that climatic change is a natural occurance on this planet?
4. If climatic change is a natural phenomenon, and has happened frequently(independently of mankind's actions) in the past, might it not be reasonable to suspect that it is going to happen, again(independently of mankind's actions)?
5. Do you think that its possible that climatic change is a constant, recurring, natural event that happens on Earth?
6. Don't you think the phenomenon should be understood before govts institute drastic policy changes that will profoundly affect me and you?
7. Why are developing countries exempted from reduced energy use under the Kyoto Treaty? Doesn't that 'target' us in the 'developed', Western world?



I believe these questions allow us to get outside of the controversy of modern science's lack of clarity (due--in my opinion--to the one-sided coverage by the mass media/schools in favor of global warming) on the global warming issue. That way no one can say a particular scientist has been bought off by Big Oil, or bought off by Big Govt/Foundation Grants.

Lack of Clarity? What that hell are you talking about? Industry disagrees with Scientific Research and that's a lack of clarity? That's rich. It's junk science, is it?

And one sided? Do you mean like when Dubya's Minions scrubbed the parts of a report that didn't fit the Boosh Administration's "There is no Global Warming" Ideology?

shane... Y'all need to step away from the Korporate Kool-Aide.

Let me ask you a few Q's:

1. Do you agree that Earth has gone through climatic changes (sometimes drastic) in the past?


yep...several times..for various reasons

2. Do you agree that most of these periods occured before mankind's use of fossil fuels (stated, today, as the culprit for global warming)?

as i stated above...for several reasons. among them are a meteor strike and a class 8 volcano


3. Might it not be reasonable to deduce that climatic change is a natural occurance on this planet?

it could be...however,see my answers above


4. If climatic change is a natural phenomenon, and has happened frequently(independently of mankind's actions) in the past, might it not be reasonable to suspect that it is going to happen, again(independently of mankind's actions)?

no...i gave my thoughts on why it has happened in the past. since no meteor has hit us, nor have we had a class 8 volcano, i will believe we are the cause of global warming by fossil fuels.


5. Do you think that its possible that climatic change is a constant, recurring, natural event that happens on Earth?

not global warmiing to the extent we are going thru. the weather on earth has been constant for many years. there is no proof so far that this happens "naturally", except by some event taking place that impacts the system..like a massive volcano.

6. Don't you think the phenomenon should be understood before govts institute drastic policy changes that will profoundly affect me and you?]/b]

you sound like those who laughed at hydrocarbons and the ozone years ago. i think they should clean up their acts and contribute to a healthy earth. even if they don't believe in it, one only has to look at los angeles and the smog there...c'mon man...don't you think there is some "moral" responsibility towards nature???


[b]7. Why are developing countries exempted from reduced energy use under the Kyoto Treaty? Doesn't that 'target' us in the 'developed', Western world?

you answered that yourself in your question. developing nations have a right to catch up with world economics...is one answer.

and the other could be that as long as they are exempt, american companies can run rampant in those countries.

to be honest, i have not read that (yet) maybe i should to see why they worded it like that.
[/b]

[quote="Seamus"]
Lack of Clarity? What that hell are you talking about? Industry disagrees with Scientific Research and that's a lack of clarity? That's rich. It's junk science, is it?

And one sided? Do you mean like when Dubya's Minions scrubbed the parts of a report that didn't fit the Boosh Administration's "There is no Global Warming" Ideology?

shane... Y'all need to step away from the Korporate Kool-Aide.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten facts about global warming
THEY don’t want you to know


Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Domesday book.
Greenland got its name from the verdant pastures that attracted the Norse settlers under Eric the Red in 986. They carried on their normal way of life (based on cattle, grain, hay and herring) for 300 years until the Little Ice Age, when they were driven off by the encroaching ice and the Inuit took over. The ice and the Inuit are still there.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas.
Without the Greenhouse Effect there would be no life on Earth.
Temperature measurements by satellite, radio sonde balloons and well maintained rural surface stations in the West show no significant warming.
The only evidence of significant warming comes from mainly non-western stations that are probably ill maintained and are contaminated by the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Computer models of the climate are worthless, as they are based on many assumptions about interactions between climate factors that are still unknown to science. They are generally unstable and chaotic, giving a wide variety of answers depending on the input assumptions.
The Kyoto agreement would have a devastating effect on the world economy but, since carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, an undetectable effect on the climate.
The IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been the main engine for promoting the global warming scare. It has become notorious for its corrupt practices of doctoring its reports and executive summaries, after they have been approved by the participating scientists, to conform to its political objectives
The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists.


References
SEPP

Still waiting for greenhouse

CO2 Science

Philip Stott

Warwick Hughes

Oregon Petition Project

Global warming: a closer look at the numbers.

Sorry, wrong number!

When it was really hot!

Index




Maybe YOU need to stop drinking the Anti-Progress Ale. I guess all those THOUSANDS of scientists and Nobel Prize winners are all on the corporate dole, huh? Oh, and 'Green' scientists who receive Govt/Foundation grants are the epitomy of nonbias, aren't they? They couldn't possibly have an agenda--how could they, they agree with YOUR preconceived notions, don't they? Even IF global warming is occurring, you DO realize that Earth has gone through climatic change many times in its past--before the advent of fossil fuels? Thats the thing that 'environmentalists' don't seem to be able to grasp--the Earth actually goes through changes! Imagine that! Thats why the dinosaurs are gone, thats why the sea level has risen relative to 10's of THOUSANDS of years ago (did mankind cause THAT too?), earthquakes/volcanoes/asteroids alter the landscape, MILLIONS of species have come and gone (and no, mankind wasn't responsible for them all). Nature/Earth has always been in a constant state of change/evolution. Should we expect it to stop just because mankind has instruments capable of measuring these changes?

you sound like those who laughed at hydrocarbons and the ozone years ago. i think they should clean up their acts and contribute to a healthy earth. even if they don't believe in it, one only has to look at los angeles and the smog there...c'mon man...don't you think there is some "moral" responsibility towards nature???

Your replies were reasonable, thank you. I just don't think the case for gw has been proved, the POSSIBLE consequences understood--if gw is true, and the proposed solutions valid. We disagree, and that's OK. I think you WILL 'get your way'--if it involves more Govt, it usually gets done.
I still laugh at the connection between hydrocarbons and the ozone--another manufactured scare.


[b]7. Why are developing countries exempted from reduced energy use under the Kyoto Treaty? Doesn't that 'target' us in the 'developed', Western world? [/b]

you answered that yourself in your question. developing nations have a right to catch up with world economics...is one answer.

and the other could be that as long as they are exempt, american companies can run rampant in those countries.

to be honest, i have not read that (yet) maybe i should to see why they worded it like that.
[/b][/quote]

Thanks for your honesty. I just don't see the reasoning behind implementing energy restrictions on the West (defined mainly as Europe, North America, Japan,) with its relatively small proportion of the world population while allowing the rest of the world to pollute away. If all the BILLIONS in the undeveloped world pollute, wouldn't you think it would cancel out (and then some) the sacrifices made by the MILLIONS who are doing without in the '1st World'? To me, that tips off the real purpose of Kyoto--to bring the standard of living down in the West. People are much more willing to give up freedoms when they're hurting/scared.

If Bush and Cheney started "Christians for Conservation" do you think they'd be sincere?



Catherine