Wednesday, 25 June 2008


via Pagar at DK's:

Does anyone else see a link between the environmental lobby and their fear of apocalypse and other interventions by those that seek to meddle in our lives for our own good.

I have a theory that deep down such people are cowards. They are afraid of their own mortality and project that fear by attempting to ban people undertaking activities that they consider potentially damaging- whether it's drinking, drug taking, smoking or driving a car at a speed faster than they dictate is allowable.

There has been a huge movement over the last twenty years to try to eliminate all risk from life and I think these cowards may actually believe they can live for ever. Personally, I am more afraid of medical science keeping me alive for decades more than is natural so that I can drool and defecate in some horrific nursing home.

I have deliberately adopted a lifestyle that will hopefully ensure that does not happen- only problem is that the health gestapo are doing their best to try to prevent me living my life as I wish to.

I hadn't thought of it this way before - though I've often wondered why there's so much overlap between authoritarians of the leftist type and environmentalists - but it makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

UPDATE: Further reading

For anoyne who's wondering what my position on the great climate change debate is, the first paragraph of the above-linked article by Charles Krauthammer pretty much sums it up:
I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.


"Stalin" rhymes with "recycling bin", what does that tell you, eh? said...

No it doesn't:-) If you seriously want to convince people of the worth of a "sceptical" view on climate change issues, surely a scientifically-minded chap like yourself can come up with some sort of proper scientific argument rather than a bit of pseudo-psychology about scary "eco-Nazis".

You're far too smart for this sort of thing-this post is surely little more than abuse?

QT said...

Corrected typos and re-worked final statement.

Do you acknowledge that there is a significant overlap between authoritarian socialists and environmentalists (if you don't then I can only suggest you read Comment is Free a bit more)?

If so, what is your problem with my post. Are you seriously contending that all of these authoritarian socialists, who typically also advocate "nanny state" interventions on matters such as smoking, drinking, obesity etc., understand the science better than I or DK or Bishop Hill do?

That is what the post (and other previous ones on this topic on QT) was about, not questioning the scientific 'consensus' itself - DK and Bishop Hill do a fine job of that.