THE LAST DITCH An Englishman returned after twenty years abroad blogs about liberty in Britain
Richard is winning his fight
YouTube - CAIR Rep reacts to Ohio Car Dealer's 'Jihad' Radio Ads

Talk about Newsnight | What's the point of the Green Party?

Link: BBC NEWS | Talk about Newsnight | What's the point of the Green Party?.

The debate about "What is the point of the Green Party?" continues over at the Newsnight site, with toys being thrown out of Green prams at mild challenges to their orthodoxy. All quite amusing. My latest contribution is below the fold.

At 12:27 AM on 26 Sep 2006, Tom Paine wrote:

I loved Paul Frost's abusive outburst in post 105. The original Tom Paine was indeed an outspoken radical, not at all like the priggish and reactionary Greens.

As Professor Bjørn Lomborg points out in his "Skeptical Environmentalist", Green ideology has now taken on many of the attributes of a religion. To oppose it, even to question the ever-evolving details of the creed is to provoke the hysterical reaction of the fundamentalist to "heresy".

Post 105 is just another example of that.

The human race has risen (and may yet fall) during what is, in the Earth's own terms, a short interglacial interval. Even during the short time we have been noticing our surroundings, we have seen a wide range of climate change - vineyards in the North in Roman times, ice fairs on the Thames in Dickens' day - to which we certainly did not contribute. The fossil record shows a great deal more climate change than that - all without the aid of humanity.

We are vain creatures, constantly overstating our significance in the Cosmos - remember the fuss when a "heretic" first postulated that the Earth (and by extension humanity) was not the centre of the Universe?

The Earth will be here, populated by something or other, long after we are gone, long after our successors (better adapted to the conditions of their time) have gone. The Earth will meet its own destiny without input from us.

Greens are therefore quite as primitive and as vain in their beliefs as the people of the Incas who believed their prayers raised the Sun every morning. There is, in truth, no point to them at all, save for the harmless amusement they provide to Jeremy Clarkson and the constant supply of excuses for "good" taxation they provide to our rulers.

This was in response to a charming critique of my earlier contributions (I am always amazed by how many leftists want to claim sturdy freeom-lover Tom Paine as their own) as follows:-

105. At 02:07 PM on 25 Sep 2006, Paul Frost wrote:

Poster 104 calls himself "Tom Paine". What an insult to a great radical who opposed the establishment. This insulter is a climate change denier (these days on a par with a flat-earther)prone to accuse anyone questioning the current economic status quo of being a Luddite.

For the record the Green Party is pro-technology, where that technology is useful and does not threaten continued planetary survival - we need rapid development and deployment of renewable energy and transport technology, for example.

The red-baiting comments of not-Tom-Paine are also indicative that what we have here is one of those conspiracy theorist far rightists who see everyone even slightly left of centre as a stalinist monster. As for growth, we need Green growth, particularly in the developing countries, so that people can achieve decent living standards without destroying the planet. And yes, this might involve some challenge to the obscene riches of the fat cats and billionaires who rule the West and own much of its media.

It is those who deny climate change and think we can go on with business as usual who will condemn both the developed and developing worlds to social and economic collapse, not those, like the Greens,
who are seeking more sustainable economic arrangements.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The really interesting thing about the Lomberg programme was the fact that most of the contributors totally discounted economics. As if it were some optional aspect of human societies that could be overcome by good intentions. They are a new breed of hyper-moralising prefects if you ask me, who want to tell everyone how to live. Lomberg on the other hand was lucid and reasonable, and remained so throughout despite having to put adolescent arguments. North was rather good too, but that Vicar, and the Green woman, MY GOD, they were morons.

It's sad to see the Torys playing this game too.

An amusing exchange. I personally get a bit miffed that whenever I disagrees with a greenie it is immediately assumed that I am a climate change denier, and as such beneath contempt and safely ignored.

I listened to Professor Bjørn Lomborg on a Radio 4 debate last week. He got a similar treatment. It was fascinating to hear him outlining a scenario along the lines that climate change is happening, and whether it is due to human activity or not does not alter the fact that it will happen, and there are far more cost effective ways to deal with it than retreating into the nearest cave.

He repeated this argument several times to no avail. It was as if the greenies had been hypnotised to hear silence whenever confronted with the real world.

Finally, one of the greenies made a half hearted response along the lines, "Be that as it may, we have to do something." And this just about somes their religion up.

The "something" can be a totally futile gesture, but it is still better than facing up to reality that climate change will happen.

The comments to this entry are closed.