An alternative? Really?

An alternative to the new wave of ecofascism

By liberating humanity from the compulsion to consume, climate catastrophe can be averted without recourse to authoritarianism

It is time to acknowledge that mainstream environmentalism has failed to prevent climate catastrophe. Its refusal to call for an immediate consumption reduction has backfired and its demise has opened the way for a wave of fascist environmentalists who reject democratic freedom.

In which our intrepid blogger tells us that those nasty population controlling, back to the stone age eco-fascists have got it all wrong and instead a cuddly environmental movement will ban advertising, 'liberate' us from consumption, revoke the power of corporations and bring about a downshift in the economy.

So by doing the same as the 'eco-fascists' but doing it with a good heart.

Yeah, right.

Just more of the same mantra, ignoring that this twat can't see he's just calling for the same control-freakery nonsense that his alleged targets are.

Humanity can avert climate catastrophe without accepting ecological tyranny. However, this will take an immediate, drastic reduction of our consumption. This requires the trust that the majority of people would voluntarily reduce their standard of living once the forces that induce consumerism are overcome.

So 'humanity' can avert disaster by bringing disaster upon itself. See it's consumerism that's the cause of the world's ills. Not stone-age theocracies that seek to diminish individualism, not tin-pot dictators who like to keep their poor cowed and accepting what scraps are thrown at them, not western societies that spend half their GDP on government and building a client-state of reliant masses firmly stuck in the bottom.

No, it's ingenuity, invention and production of desirable products that are going to kill us all. In Micah's world a kettle is far worse than a gun, a toaster more depraved than preventing women from getting an education and cars worse than tanks. To be fair, he has a vested interest in this seeing as he edits a magazine which you can buy in the name of reducing your consumption.

What is it with these loons that makes them unable to see that everything they say is hypocritical?

Here's what Adbusters think:

Citing the global vilification of tobacco as his model for other industries, Adbusters chief Kalle Lasn writes: “[Culture] Jammers are now mobilizing to repeat the tobacco story in many other areas of life. We’re going to take on the global automakers, the chemical companies, the food industries, the fashion corporations and the pop-culture marketers in a free-information environment …We want auto executives to feel just as squeezed and beleaguered as tobacco executives. We want them to have a hard time looking their kids in the eye and explaining exactly what they do for a living."

I blame Bill Hicks.

Nah, just kidding, at least Bill could see through hypocrisy.

So the Guardian pay a guy to write an article about how the 'eco-fascists' are wrong, and what is needed is big dose of eco-marxism instead. If it wasn't in the Guardian I guess you couldn't make it up.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

Norwegians lose ice artifacts to climate change

Ice layers once covering Norwegian mountain summits are melting so fast, archaeologists cannot keep pace with and preserve the number of emerging discoveries.

It takes a fairly special interpretation of the facts to deduce that uncovering archaeological treasures going back some 3,000 years is somehow 'losing' them.

The doublespeak being offered here seems to be based on the idea that, because they have found so many they must have lost even more and so that great global bogeyman 'climate change' (even this phrase is about to be binned in place of Global Climate Disruption, yet another coverall phrase) can be wheeled out and applied in this case.

Do these people think we're stupid? I think they do.

The scientists talking to the reporter here don't mention climate change in any of their quotes. Indeed:

"It's like a time machine...the ice has not been this small for many, many centuries," Pilø told Reuters this week.

I'll accept that the ice is melting due to climatic processes right now. I'll accept that some portion of that may well be related to man on earth. But you need to remember it's also been reported that cow, pig, sheep and chicken on earth are responsible for about a third too (oO,). But what exactly happened many, many centuries ago that is fundamentally different from what may or may not be happening now?

The standard answer is time period. Like we're to accept that the ice encroached over a leather show over hundreds of years. Not forgetting that the artifacts they are finding stretch back 1500 years up to 3400 years. Did the ice stop coming slowly for nearly 2000 years do you think? Or is it at all possible that in a period of 3500 years alone the ice has moved back and forth sometimes more than today, sometimes less?

You need to remember if you even have the audacity to wonder about this stuff you're a denier and an anti-science flat earther.

I'd like to know why this article is even tagged with climate change considering they couldn't get a money quote from the scientists? Do you think they've just not used it, or the implication is in the quotes and it doesn't need to used. Or is the sub-editor just so lazy they've seen melting ice and automatically added the climate change tag. Personally I think it's more likely that we're being spoon fed yet more bilge dressed up as concern for the planet.