Compiled by Lewis Loflin
From: Common Sense Environmentalism
All activities in the natural world—human or otherwise—involve multi-step processes. Growing a garden exemplifies this: nature and humanity collaborate. Nuclear fusion in the sun generates radiation, including visible light, which travels through a vacuum to Earth. Filtered by the atmosphere and shielded by the magnetic field from charged particles, this energy fuels potato plants via complex chemical and biological processes. Humans then intervene—selective breeding, fertilizers, weeding, harvesting, cooking—transforming sunlight into potato salad.
Science, empiricism, and reason guide these steps, enhancing natural processes to benefit both humanity and nature. Modified crops yield more food with less land and resources, reducing environmental impact. Yet, environmentalists reject this at every turn. Human intervention is heresy to them. Big Think notes:
“A hybrid potato that reduces food waste and eliminates a suspected carcinogen in cooked potato products seems like an environmentalist’s dream. But it’s a biotech blend of potato genes, so GMO opponents fight to keep this beneficial product from consumers.”
This is irrational—religious dogma, not reason. As I’ve argued in “Green Theology is Killing Children,” pseudo-religion permeates environmentalism, from Greenpeace’s crusade against Golden Rice to broader anti-science stances. Rational environmentalists must reject this nonsense.
Even cooking introduces trace carcinogens—harmless in moderation—yet California eco-cultists once demanded cancer labels on fries. The hysteria over GMOs is equally unfounded. “Organic” is a meaningless buzzword, less efficient and costlier. The USDA defines it as:
“Produce certified as grown on soil with no prohibited substances—like synthetic fertilizers or pesticides—applied for three years before harvest.”
Sources estimate organic farming yields 35% less food, requiring 35% more land to match conventional output. Sri Lanka’s 2021 overnight ban on synthetic fertilizers, pushed by global eco-zealots, slashed food production by 50%, leaving 6.3 million facing famine (Vox, July 15, 2022):
“President Rajapaksa banned synthetic fertilizer and pesticide imports, forcing farmers to go organic. It was disastrous, as scientists had warned.”
This echoes the millions of Filipino children harmed by Greenpeace’s anti-GMO dogma, as noted in “Green Theology.” I’ll stick with modern, rational farming over such religious lunacy.
Russ Harding of the Mackinac Center (October 2, 2008) highlights the rift:
“Today’s environmental movement differs radically from the conservation movement of the early 20th century... Modern environmentalists hold a pantheistic worldview, deifying nature. Humans are separate, immoral when disturbing it—even cutting and replanting trees is a violation.”
This aligns with Joy Smith-Briggs’ theology in “Separation of Environmentalism and State,” where she deemed the earth “holy” and Al Gore fused ecology with social justice. Conservationism, unlike environmentalism, balances human needs with nature’s limits—my potatoes fit here, not in their dogma.
Some scientists, like IPCC’s Mojib Latif, attribute warming since 1900 to natural oceanic cycles, not just greenhouse gases. In 2008, he predicted a cooling trend, noting, “As much as 50% of the warming from 1980 to 2000, and earlier periods, was due to these cycles” (no warming since 1998). A 0.5°C rise, half natural, leaves little to quibble over. Historical shifts predate industrial CO2 spikes.
What about the other 50%? Science Daily (March 21, 2003) cites NASA’s Richard Wilson: “Since the late 1970s, solar radiation during quiet sunspot periods has risen 0.05% per decade... If sustained, this could drive significant climate change.” Five decades later, that’s a factor eco-models often downplay.
Why question this? Environmentalism is pseudoscience, not science. From “Green Theology,” we saw Greenpeace’s anti-science bent; from “Separation,” Joy and Gore’s spiritualism over evidence. Pseudoscience mimics science’s trappings—models, expert testimonials—but skips rigor:
“Pseudoscience lacks the scientific method, falsifiable predictions, or double-blind experiments. It cheats the process, relying on conjecture over proof.”
Computer models aren’t evidence—they’re guesses. Claims of “scientific consensus” aren’t science; they’re politics. Rational farming and conservation demand real data, not eco-cult dogma.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
