Mixing religion, government, environmentalism explosive device.

Compiled by Lewis Loflin

From Common Sense Environmentalism.

Be aware that all activities in the natural world, be it man or Nature, involves a process, often multi-step processes.

Growing a garden is a complex process involving Nature and mankind working together.

Nuclear fusion generates radiation, including visible light—that radiation propagates through a vacuum to earth. The radiation, filtered by the atmosphere, falls on your potato plants. The earth's magnetic field deflects dangerous charge particles.

Through complex chemical and biological sub-processes, the plant grows. At that point, humanity introduces new processes and sub-processes.

Humanity guides the final processes through selective breeding, fertilizers, and weeding. Harvest, cooking, and consuming the product introduces additional steps and procedures.

On the journey from sunlight to potato salad, we used natural processes we discovered through science, empiricism, and reason. We modified biological processes to benefit man and Nature and use less land and resources for more food. That means a less negative impact on the local environment.

Environmentalists won't tolerate my potatoes at any step. Human intervention in the process is heresy. To quote www.bigthink.com:

"A hybrid potato that can reduce food waste and eliminate a suspected carcinogen in cooked potato products would seem to be an environmentalist's dream. But the hybrid was created using biotechnology to blend potato genes from different varieties, so opponents of genetically modified food are fighting to keep this potentially beneficial product from ever reaching consumers."

That is irrational. That is religious dogma. Silly religion should have no role here. Pseudo-religion permeates environmental doctrine. The rational environmentalist must reject this nonsense.

Even everyday cooking introduces traces of so-called carcinogens in harmless trace amounts—California eco-cultists demanded cancer labels on french fries!

The hysteria over GMO foods and plants is unfounded and irrational. Organic is also meaningless, with no clear definition other than being less efficient to produce and costing more.

The USDA definition of "organic" serves to enforce religious dogma from environmentalists. To quote,

"Produce can be called organic if it's certified to have grown on soil with no prohibited substances applied for three years before harvest. Prohibited substances include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides."

Sources claim "organic" yields 35% less food. 35% more land will need to be plowed under to grow the same food. An estimated 6.3 million people in Sri Lanka face famine because "organic" farming, pushed by global eco-cultists, caused a 50% drop in food production. All of that for no rational reason.

To quote www.vox.com Jul 15, 2022,

"But in the spring of 2021, President Rajapaksa made an unusual decision: He banned synthetic fertilizer and pesticide imports practically overnight, forcing Sri Lanka's millions of farmers to go organic. It proved disastrous, as a group of Sri Lankan scientists and agriculture experts had warned."

Sorry, but I will stay with modern, rational farming and not religious nonsense.

In "Conservationist or Environmentalist?", October 2, 2008, Russ Harding of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy notes,

"The worldview of today's environmental movement is radically different from that of the conservation movement predominant for the first 70 years of the 20th century...the worldview of many modern-day environmentalists is much different. The mindset of such adherents is pantheistic - in which nature is deified and worshipped. ... According to this worldview, humans exist separate from nature and act immorally when they disturb or disrupt nature. Even the slightest disturbance - such as cutting and replanting trees - represents a violation of nature by humans."

According to some scientists, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases. It occurred because the world was in a 'warm mode', and would have happened regardless of mankind's rising carbon dioxide production..."

The research has been carried out by eminent climate scientists, including Professor Mojib Latif. He is a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He and his colleagues predicted the cooling trend in a 2008 paper, and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva in September...Professor Latif said: 'A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th century was due to these cycles - as much as 50 per cent. (There has been no warming since 1998.)

So we quibble over 0.5 degrees C and half of that is natural? Now one could argue that a normal cooling trend has counter-balanced alleged human-induced global warming but that can't be proven. But historically these changes have been observed throughout human history.

So where did the other 50 percent come from?

Science Dailey March 21, 2003: "Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study...This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Wilson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York...

It's now five decades later. Why do I question these claims? Because environmentalism is a pseudoscience as are the claims of "scientific conscientious." Science is not about "conscientious." To quote the definition of pseudo-science:

Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Although pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, it lacks any of the substance of science.

Promoters of pseudoscience often adopt the vocabulary of science, describing conjectures as theories or laws, often providing supposed evidence from observation, expert testimonials, or even developing what appear to be mathematical models of their ideas. However, in pseudoscience there is no real honest attempt to follow the scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, or develop double blind experiments. Pseudoscientists often use the tactic of cheating the scientific method.

Computer models do not constitute proof and their application to predict the future is simply conjecture and evades the scientific method.

Religious Articles Index
Origins Christianity

Sullivan-county.com banner.

Bristolwatch.com banner.

Banner www.bristolblog.com

Web site Copyright Lewis Loflin, All rights reserved.
If using this material on another site, please provide a link back to my site.