In 1971, Dr. Patrick Moore, a PhD student in ecology, helped start Greenpeace in a church basement. He was president of Greenpeace Canada for nine years and a director of Greenpeace International for seven years.
His old friends now call him an apostate environmentalist, a turncoat and a sellout. He says, “they are the ones who have abandoned actual science and reasonable thinking in favor of emotional fearmongering and shameless political posturing.”
I know how he feels. In the 1970s, as a University of Illinois energy researcher and graduate student, I founded the environmental and consumer opposition to the local nuclear plants and rate hikes proposed by the power company. I also led the fight against the airport expansion and for bikeways in Urbana, and was involved in battles against damming of rivers and blanketing the state with more freeways.
An all-purpose, deeply involved environmentalist and green weenie until 1990. After much reading and thinking, I saw through the mistakes underlying the cause and the turns it had taken, and I outgrew it. Now, I exemplify politically an old Nevada saying: Nobody sings louder in the church choir than the reformed whore.
On television, Moore recently said, “The whole climate crisis is not only fake news, it’s fake science.”
But what about the scientific consensus in climate research? He calls it a sham. “Only 36 percent of scientists agree with the end-of-the-world scenario of global warming that fuels the UN climate agenda.” A far cry from the usual 97 percent claim of the global warming industry.
He adds, “And there is a considerable element of groupthink, herd mentality, peer pressure, political pressure, support of certain energy policies, and a desire to ‘Save the Earth’ – whether it needs to be saved or not.”
“Yes, the world is modestly warming now. Just like we were 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period and 2,000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period. The fact is the Earth’s climate varies naturally – with little influence from human activity.”
About the Green New Deal – of which one of its architects said, “we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing” – Moore notes:
“The cost to each American household could be as high as $150,000 – or $16.3 trillion as a total for the nation. The impact on America’s economy as a whole would be devastating, as those costs would have to be borne by families and private citizens who would otherwise use their monies to provide for better healthcare, education, living expenses, and a host of other things.”
It would also force the vast majority of Americans to either purchase an electric car or go without a motor vehicle altogether to phase out fossil fuel use by 2035 or sooner.
Energy costs would rise 25 percent in just the first few months of implementation of the Green New Deal. When fully implemented, our gasoline prices would reach those of Europe, $8 per gallon – four times the $2 we now pay. In time, prices would rise even further as all fossil fuel extraction on federal lands would 2cease and new coal, gas and nuclear plants would be banned.
“Drilling and mining will come to a screeching halt in most parts of America. Most Americans who work in the energy or mining sectors would likely lose their jobs in short order. Meanwhile, America’s competitors – like China and Russia – are sure to grow stronger as we diminish in stature as the world’s leading economic power.”
Here’s the kicker: basic choices we take for granted – like eating red meet, using air travel, and driving SUVs – could even be banned outright. Climate elitists consider these things wasteful extravagances that contribute to a climate “emergency.”
The Green New Deal would even give some government officials full license to enter your home and grade its “sustainability.” It calls for retrofitting “every building” for “maximal energy efficiency.”
Ultimately, even private home ownership is threatened. As Kian Goh, a UCLA urban planning professor, recently wrote, “If we want to keep cities safe in the face of climate change, we need to seriously question the ideal of private homeownership.”
I didn’t really leave the environmental and green movement. It left me and all reasonable people.
Ron Knecht, MS, JD & PE(CA), has served Nevadans as state controller, a higher education regent, economist, college teacher and legislator. Contact him at RonKnecht@aol.com.
Ron Knecht
775-882-2935
775-220-6128
www.RonKnecht.net
His old friends now call him an apostate environmentalist, a turncoat and a sellout. He says, “they are the ones who have abandoned actual science and reasonable thinking in favor of emotional fearmongering and shameless political posturing.”
I know how he feels. In the 1970s, as a University of Illinois energy researcher and graduate student, I founded the environmental and consumer opposition to the local nuclear plants and rate hikes proposed by the power company. I also led the fight against the airport expansion and for bikeways in Urbana, and was involved in battles against damming of rivers and blanketing the state with more freeways.
An all-purpose, deeply involved environmentalist and green weenie until 1990. After much reading and thinking, I saw through the mistakes underlying the cause and the turns it had taken, and I outgrew it. Now, I exemplify politically an old Nevada saying: Nobody sings louder in the church choir than the reformed whore.
On television, Moore recently said, “The whole climate crisis is not only fake news, it’s fake science.”
But what about the scientific consensus in climate research? He calls it a sham. “Only 36 percent of scientists agree with the end-of-the-world scenario of global warming that fuels the UN climate agenda.” A far cry from the usual 97 percent claim of the global warming industry.
He adds, “And there is a considerable element of groupthink, herd mentality, peer pressure, political pressure, support of certain energy policies, and a desire to ‘Save the Earth’ – whether it needs to be saved or not.”
“Yes, the world is modestly warming now. Just like we were 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period and 2,000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period. The fact is the Earth’s climate varies naturally – with little influence from human activity.”
About the Green New Deal – of which one of its architects said, “we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing” – Moore notes:
“The cost to each American household could be as high as $150,000 – or $16.3 trillion as a total for the nation. The impact on America’s economy as a whole would be devastating, as those costs would have to be borne by families and private citizens who would otherwise use their monies to provide for better healthcare, education, living expenses, and a host of other things.”
It would also force the vast majority of Americans to either purchase an electric car or go without a motor vehicle altogether to phase out fossil fuel use by 2035 or sooner.
Energy costs would rise 25 percent in just the first few months of implementation of the Green New Deal. When fully implemented, our gasoline prices would reach those of Europe, $8 per gallon – four times the $2 we now pay. In time, prices would rise even further as all fossil fuel extraction on federal lands would 2cease and new coal, gas and nuclear plants would be banned.
“Drilling and mining will come to a screeching halt in most parts of America. Most Americans who work in the energy or mining sectors would likely lose their jobs in short order. Meanwhile, America’s competitors – like China and Russia – are sure to grow stronger as we diminish in stature as the world’s leading economic power.”
Here’s the kicker: basic choices we take for granted – like eating red meet, using air travel, and driving SUVs – could even be banned outright. Climate elitists consider these things wasteful extravagances that contribute to a climate “emergency.”
The Green New Deal would even give some government officials full license to enter your home and grade its “sustainability.” It calls for retrofitting “every building” for “maximal energy efficiency.”
Ultimately, even private home ownership is threatened. As Kian Goh, a UCLA urban planning professor, recently wrote, “If we want to keep cities safe in the face of climate change, we need to seriously question the ideal of private homeownership.”
I didn’t really leave the environmental and green movement. It left me and all reasonable people.
Ron Knecht, MS, JD & PE(CA), has served Nevadans as state controller, a higher education regent, economist, college teacher and legislator. Contact him at RonKnecht@aol.com.
Ron Knecht
775-882-2935
775-220-6128
www.RonKnecht.net
RSS Feed