What Environmentalism is and is Not-2

Second, we have scientists and pseudo scientists. These people are actually worse than the antis because they should know better. A scientist is supposed to have an open analytical mind, but when it comes to environmentalism, this is not always true. many of these scientists go way out of their field and lend their name and title to some cause. Just having a Ph.D does not automatically make you an expert in every field. How does a Ph.D in English literature help your knowledge of the rain forest or global warming? These are the people I call the pseudo-scientists. They try to use their degree to pass themselves off as something they are not. There are also genuine scientists that, for whatever reason, (mostly political) seem to always side with the fanatic fringe of environmentalism. these are the people who in the seventies were admonishing us for putting off of the pollution and smog into the air. They were positive that all of that smog and pollution was blocking out the sun and was going to be the major cause of another ice age. Fast forward to the nineties and you have many of these same people saying that all that pollution and carbon dioxide is causing global warming and that, among other disasters, the polar ice caps are melting. It apparently does not seem to be a contradiction to them that they are calling for two different extreme effects from the same cause. Then you have politicians like Al Gore, the inventor of the Internet, who is making a living out of promoting his global position. I will talk much more about him in my chapter on global warming. I kind of liken this mentality to somewhere between "Chicken Little" and "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Kind of a chicken little who cried wolf. What I think we have is one group that are pseudo-scientists and another group that are pseudo-environmentalists. Another thing that I think is that they are all in it for the money and the power. They are all left wing, communist backed and would like nothing better than to ruin this country by turning it into a communist state.

A third group that deserves a closer look is the mass media. These people, especially the TV news people, can do more harm than good to the real cause of the environment. These are the people that give the kooks, the antis, the pseudo-scientists and others a platform for their views. You rarely see or hear the real scientists or environmentalists on thee shows or in print in major publications. What you see is someone who is considered an "expert" in the field warning us of a hole in the ozone or telling us that pieces of Antarctica are breaking off. What is not told is that the hole in the ozone is not really a hole at all but a thinning of the ozone in certain locations. This occurs at certain times of the year and at other times of the year, these areas again thicken. this has probably been going on from time immemorial, it is just that we never before had the ability to measure it. Actually, you no longer hear much about the hole in the ozone, it seems that carbon dioxide is the newest culprit. As for the Antarctic, no one is coming forward in the media to inform us that there are volcanoes under the surface there and possibly, just possibly, undersea volcanic activity is causing some of the breakage.

Another problem with the media is the media "Stars". Many of the anti groups that I mentioned are led by, or have spokespersons from the media. This is especially true of many Hollywood movie stars. They seem to feel that because they are very wealthy and people pay to see them on TV or in the movies, that they are also a lot smarter than the average person. While some of them may be very intelligent and have a good handle on environmental issues, I am quite sure that some of them are not smart enough to pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. Yet, both types of these people are given the same amount of publicity for their pet projects. Probably ninety percent of what they are doing is for publicity to further their career. All of these, while people who know and study the environment do not get any publicity. You see, with the media, it is all about ratings. A common person going on TV to talk about the environment, no matter how much they know or how right they are, will not get a large audience. On the other hand, a movie star or TV personality will usually draw a large audience, no matter how inane their ideas are. The problem is that many people watching or listening take everything that their favorite star says as gospel. They do not bother to look farther into the subject and they might even be convinced to join the persons pet organization and contribute money to it. Television is an entertainment medium. Even the contents of the newscasts are based on ratings. Movies are completely an entertainment medium, so anything you see about the environment can probably be discounted. This includes Al Gore's so-called documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". Radio is better than TV, occasionally giving real environmentalists a voice on the air. Newspapers and magazines are about the best, although many of them have editorial policy that excludes any opinion that differs with the politically correct thinking of the day. The only real place to find the environmental news that is really the truth is the Internet. There are sites on the Internet that provide the truth about the environment along with many other things.

What Environmentalism Is and Is Not

When you want to get a good conversation going at a gathering or party, just mention the words: environmentalist, environmentalism, ecology or sometimes even conservation. This will definitely get the conservation started, though you may or may not like the direction it takes. You are liable to get scoffs, anger, delight, seriousness or many other reactions that you did not suspect this subject could evoke. Why this wide range of responses to this particular subject? I believe the problem is that people do not really what the real meaning of environmentalism is. Environmentalism has been taken out of the world of scientific and rational thinking and put in a world of pseudo-science and fantasy. This has been done by the major media and the groups that are allowed to hype their own ideas on that media. For this reason many people do not really know what environmentalism is all about. They hear these groups on TV or read their stuff in magazines and newspapers and feel that it must be fact because they feel these groups know what is going on and that the media would not air or publish it if it were not fact. There are always some partial truths in these reports, but as has been said many times "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

I am not a scientist nor a professional in any of the environmental or ecology fields. I could probably be considered a naturalist, but a self-taught one at that. I am an average citizen who was born and raised on a farm, who hunts, fishes and camps and who would like to leave the same opportunities for my grandchildren and their grandchildren. I believe that some common sense needs to be infused into the matter of what is good and what is bad for the environment. This common sense needs to be weighed against what is good and what is bad for mankind itself. A balance needs to be struck here, but never can be if we continue to argue the differences with feelings rather than discussing facts.

Let us look at a few things that I do not think true environmentalism is. First we have the bug loving, tree hugging kooks that lay down in front of a bulldozer because they are trying to save a minuscule organism that no one ever heard of until it was discovered in the path of a construction project. Some of these people are out for publicity while others have been misled by some organization that is only out for dues money. These people may truly believe that they are right. Next we have the antis. Anti-hunting, anti-trapping, anti-fishing, anti business, anti-progress, anti-logging, anti-meat and anti just about anything that they feel may have a detrimental effect of some part of the environment. I do not believe the antis are environmentalists. I do not feel that you can claim to be and environmentalist unless you have and alternative for what you are against: most antis do not

The anti-hunter will protest a deer hunt on government land on the grounds that hunting is cruel. they ignore the fact that on over abundance of deer will soon de-nude the foliage of that forest as high as they can reach. The seem to have no concept that the deer will then starve to death, a much crueler death than hunting. The anti-trapper is much the same, calling trapping old fashioned, cruel, inhumane and unneeded. However, they have no alternative to mange, rabies or starvation of these animals when they become overpopulated. They also have no solution for the damage caused by some of these animals. The anti-logger says we should not be cutting down the forests. When you ask where building material is to come from, they might suggest you use plastic or some other man made material. As most of there materials use oil in their production you now run up against the anti-oil drilling people. I could go through the rest of the list of antis, but I think you get the idea. Antis are generally people who are strongly against something that other people need or enjoy, but have no alternative plan. Many time what the antis are against are things that should be done away with, but with no alternative plan really cannot. Occasionally antis do offer plans, but many times these plans are unworkable. Either that or so expensive that they are not practical.