June 20, 2016The new environmentalism…
My last post took on interference with rational government regulation, and corporate denial of its importance. But to be fair, there is much to think about, too, in terms of what the environmental movement itself is doing wrong.
Here I focus on the science denialism that exists on the “left” as well. If our nation is ever to take environmental responsibility seriously, we must work to blunt the voices of the environmental movement who spout irrational propaganda in support of ideas that just don’t pass the smell test.
Many of these ridiculous ideas are indeed related to proposed geoengineering solutions out there to solve some of Earth’s crises that are seemingly ridiculous on their face. As a scientist in Florida I actually had to evaluate some of these. For example, claims that dropping atomic weapons on hurricanes, or adding absorbent (think Pampers lining) material to the ocean, would diminish hurricane intensity. But the widespread implementation of them is just not happening. I won’t dignify the public web sites out there that tout environmental harm, but among them are the patently false claims related to:
Chemtrails – by spraying chemical aerosols that are probably harmful, the government is reducing solar radiation, combatting global warming – see http://contrailscience.com/ for good debunking material here
Iron fertilization of the oceans to forestall ocean acidification – a useful summary of the lack of benefits to this and other similar “solutions” is found here.
HAARP – Blamed for causing many natural disasters, and basically closed down, it still gets amazing attention from environmental whackos (yes there are many out there and they show up at public meetings and grab microphones, etc.). HAARP is closed, and had some interesting purposes, but not weather modification!
Other acronyms that seem to get peoples’ goat: EMFs – ElectroMagnetic Fields do exist in nature, and much of today’s technology does relate to advances in their applications (such as WiFi networks, Bluetooth technology, smart power meters, etc.). Many so-called environmentalists like to tout the research that supposedly supports the idea that harm has been proven. The reality, however, is that most studies have not shown any affect, and at best a weak connection has been found to impacts on laboratory animals, in studies that are difficult to replicate or have extremely small sample sizes.
GMOs – I’m no biologist or chemist but I realize that even though I eat pretty healthy food in general, probably more than 50% of what I consume has been genetically modified. I like labeling to know what I eat, too, given that I have two very serious food allergies