But James, What if You are Wrong about Climate Change???? By James Reed
If one is a rational scientific thinker, then the possibility of being wrong must be addressed. Here at this beloved site, we oppose the mainstream on climate change, global warming, you know that nonsense and hot air. But what if we are wrong, someone in an email recently asked? Is the UN and globalists right, and should we pack our bags and give up, living a life of drinking soy milk, instead of hard liquor? Hardly. Here is some literature discussing this hypothetical. The basic line of response is that the best way of dealing with any environmental problem is locally, not globally, because globally the problem is just too big to solve. Thus, if there is a need to reduce waste, then fine, let us overhaul the financial system, which because of its debt structure leads to the need for endless growth, much of which does not serve genuine human interests. In other words, environmentalism could be reinterpreted from the Right, and it would make more sense too.
But don’t panic! Nobody here is saying anything positive about environmentalism, only in the logically possible scenario that we IF were wrong, the argument is far from over.
Here is another response from the Dissent Right to the issue of climate change, showing that whatever the science shows, policies are dictated by human choices and freewill. We should not get too hung up about the scientific facts, whatever that means; let the scientists deliver them, while we deliver the polices!
“Environmentalism and “green politics” are largely white concerns, even though the Left has largely monopolized these issues. However, the Left’s “green politics,” combined with support for mass immigration and opposition to nuclear power would mean a future of overcrowding, poverty, and the displacement of whites. Climate change is another area the Left has been allowed to monopolize. Liberals warns of an apocalypse, in which the wicked (white) industrial nations of the north suffer drought, famine, storms, and floods because of their sins against Mother Earth. And what about the south? It, too, will face these man-made disasters, except with the expectation that its people will flee north to safer spaces—our spaces. This dynamic—in the context of war as much as climate change—has already had a test-run in Western Europe, in the form of the so-called “migrant crisis.” Millions of African and Middle Eastern people, largely adult Muslim males, have been let into Europe. Because of family reunification, each of these “new Europeans” will in time bring in several more “new Europeans.” While much of our contemporary Western science is increasingly suspect—with political concerns such as anti-racism inhibiting inquiry in the social sciences—it is reasonable to be skeptic of the Left’s primary scientific cause célèbre: climate change. Obviously there are powerful incentives for believing in man-made climate change, just as for believing in the biological equivalence of races and sexes. One can be fired from Google for questioning such things.
However, for argument’s sake, let’s assume the worst-case scenarios of climate change are true. What are we going to do about rising sea levels? How will this affect Americans who live in coastal areas? What will be done to protect Louisiana, Florida, and Texas? What about New York and New Jersey? If climate patterns really are changing, are we preparing for agricultural disruption in some areas and new opportunities in others? Do we have the legal framework to deal with “climate refugees”? When the Left tackles climate change, it wants to “save the planet”—but apparently for someone else’s babies. The population explosion in the global south combined with climate change and liberal attitudes towards migration are the single greatest external threat to Western civilization—more serious than Islamic terrorism or Hispanic illegal immigration. It would be short-sighted to dispute the view that we must become greener and less polluting. And yet, most liberals who think this way promote self-destructive ideas such as having fewer children because it’s “bad for the environment,” and welcoming refugees. If we are not saving the environment for our people, who are we saving it for?
The anti-natalism of left-environmentalists—directed mainly towards white countries—amounts to protecting another tribe’s future at the expense of ours. We’re supposed to save our environment only to turn it over to immigrants? It makes no sense to look after one’s patrimony only to give it away to outsiders—which means the entire leftist solution to climate change is bogus. Climate change does not have to end in national suicide. The Right’s response must seek to combat its effects in the interest of our national well-being. Initiatives to slow or reverse climate change are far less crucial than strengthening our capacity to deal with natural disasters in low-lying areas and to capitalize on new opportunities in the warming north. Assistance to other countries is the lowest priority. Resettling millions of their displaced into our countries is not acceptable. Those leaving the global south would soon be replaced by new births anyway. Migration triggered by climate change would overwhelm us. We should therefore have several goals: mitigate the effects of climate change and strengthen our defenses against them, profit from any benefits of climate change, and reform our thinking on immigration and refugees to prevent a climate-driven demographic catastrophe.”
I, of course, very much doubt that there is any sort of climate-driven demographic catastrophe, for the mere desire to have what the West has, drives most immigration. Still, if there is anything useful here, keep it up your sleave.