Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Scary Plastics, Pillution and Transgendered Fish

There are two articles from yesterday that I read back-to-back and I advise everyone who still thinks the environmentalists really care about anything beyond politics to do the same.

First, check out Patrick Moore's "Why I left Greenpeace" in WSJ. Excerpt:

But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.

The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.

Then jump to Iain Murray's column in NR. Excerpt:

In 2004, for example, researchers on the Potomac River, downstream from Washington, D.C., found large-mouth bass that in most respects were males, but who had eggs in their sexual organs. Quite often when this happens to fish, they find themselves unable to reproduce. When it happens primarily to male fish, the fish population in general suffers.

The cause of intersexuality among fish, scientists speculate, is pollution in the water, particularly hormones. Why don’t we have more outcries about hormones, and campaigns to save the fish populations? Why aren’t environmentalists lobbying on Capitol Hill to keep these chemicals from being dumped into our rivers?

Maybe because the source of these chemicals is not some corporate polluter, but something a little more dear to the Left: human birth-control pills, morning-after pills, and abortion pills.

The environmentalists’ silence on this topic and their willful distortions when they do talk about it show how, for many of them, the environment is more a tool for advancing favored policies than a real cause in itself.

I suppose being large-mouth bass these transgendered males really look good in lipstick. But bad memories of fish nets probably keep them from doing drag routines.

Obviously some chemicals are "protected" by these self-appointed guardians of the environment.

We should all refuse to be lectured by these dangerous moral idiots on any subject. They are not scientists. As far as humanity is concerned they never make sense, correct me when that's been proven to be untrue. And now it turns out they don't care what happens to animals either. The truth is they really don't care about anything but political power and an increasingly incoherent agenda.


  1. Great post. It's the politicization that is troublesome not the science. For the average greenpeace activist this stuff falls under the category of religion.

    For types like myself greeness falls under the category of prudence. If it makes sense and we can save money too then we should do it. That's why conservatives should own green issues.

  2. Well, I agree. There are conservative green groups, e.g., The Nature Conservancy, but they are non-political comparatively and they actually DO things, like buy land and fix it up instead of just promote fear and mass hysteria. So they aren't as popular, needless to say.

  3. I have noticed the way the enviro-left studiously ignores the problem of excessive hormones from birth control pills polluting the waters. They will talk about hormones used in meat and milk production, but from contraceptives...crickets.

  4. "Studious ignorance"! I love it, fits perfectly.