A Critical Analysis of John Carey's Climate Wars & Radical Environmentalism

In the April 23, 2007 issue of Business Week, a magazine one might reasonably hope to have a balanced perspective on environmental issues, an article has appeared entitled “Climate Wars: Episode Two,” by John Carey.

Beneath the title, the teaser line reads as follows:

“With the skeptics almost silenced, businesses are fighting over how to cut carbon emissions.”


Does anyone in America remember the first amendment? Does anyone in America still remember that skepticism is one of the foundations of science? What if the skeptics are right?

Our concerns with global warming alarm are well documented: Climate models don’t adequately take into account the role of changes in land use nor the role of water vapor; they don’t allow for balancing mechanisms in the earth’s climate; they emphasize industrial CO2 emissions at the expense of countless other factors. One good volcanic eruption and all of a sudden we’ll be wanting to warm the earth – but don’t bother the journalists – their minds are made up and the debate is closed.

What’s perhaps most amazing is these journalists who have relentlessly demonized the energy and transportation industries – the biggest industries on earth – for correctly trying to insert a note of caution into the mad rush to blame anthropogenic CO2 emissions for every thunderstorm or hot day, are abruptly free of their cynicism now that these companies are on board. Carey writes approvingly, like some forgiving parent, that the major oil companies and automakers have “evolved.”

Carey can’t help taking an easy shot at President Bush, who despite whatever else you may think of him is right on this one.

As Carey says,

“There are still holdouts, not the least George W. Bush. His mantra is that China and India must sign on if the U.S. is to impose curbs…”


How about a good point? China and India together produce nearly 5.0 gigatons of CO2 each year, compared to not quite 6.0 gigatons for the U.S. But China and India have 2.4 billion people, compared to .3 billion in the U.S. Even if industrial CO2 matters – and a skeptic would be underwhelmed at that notion – what happens as China and India continue to industrialize?

Maybe Carey and other journalists – along with any conscientious environmentalist – ought to realize that mandating CO2 emission reductions are going to empower the biggest businesses on earth. Maybe they should realize that as we embrace this obsessive fanaticism, outlawing backyard barbecues and incandescent light bulbs, the only companies powerful enough to remain in the industrial production game will be those select members of monopolies and cartels. Maybe the corporate multinationals have simply realized there’s a lot of money, taxpayer’s money, to be made by rolling over. And who can blame them?

Why doesn’t anyone in the media report on how scientists who have continued to question global warming alarm and the role of industrial CO2 have been intimidated and silenced – assuming “silencing” people is still a bad idea in the United States? Why doesn’t anyone in the media follow up on the myriad of reports that continue to raise questions about the wisdom of doing anything in the name of reducing CO2 emissions – such as devastating the remaining tropical rainforests to grow “carbon neutral” biofuel, when it may be the tropical rainforests are more critical to the global climate than regulating CO2?

There are many disturbing fallacies in Carey’s article. How about contrasting his bias against evil businesses who have suddenly been brought to heel, to his almost reverential, totally uncritical treatment of the environmental organizations who have opportunistically stoked this hysteria? Environmental organizations in the United States have been taken over by radicals, who are anti-growth, anti-capitalism, anti-car, anti-industry; they want to force everyone off the sacred “open space” and cram us all into ultra-high-density mega-cities; essentially the radical core of the environmental movement is communist. They have literally billions of dollars each year they use to spread propaganda and lobby politicians, and the global warming scare is the best thing that ever happened to them. Hiding behind their nonprofit status, they are as big as big business can get. But unlike businesses, these environmental radicals have declared economic war on the world.

Hopefully before it’s too late Americans will recognize the truth, that radical environmentalism has corrupted the environmental movement, co-opted journalism, cowed our policymakers, and undermined open scientific discourse. Radical environmentalism is the reason homes cost two or three times what they should cost, and the reason we haven’t got enough roads to drive efficiently to work and back, and instead have to wait in gridlock for hours every day. They are the reason for energy and water shortages, and they will be to blame when rationing and punitive pricing is the norm for those essentials. Have there been important goals that environmentalists have accomplished? Of course. But they have gone too far.

Anyone who watches the news with a critical eye should be concerned about the certainty with which this is being pushed. It is the biggest propaganda campaign in U.S. history. It is being sold, and to think there are no hidden agendas, or room for skepticism, is a mistake of epic proportions. And believe it or not, the environment may be the biggest victim of all, along with our liberty and freedom.

3 Responses to “A Critical Analysis of John Carey's Climate Wars & Radical Environmentalism”
  1. Dr Coles says:

    Current alarmist, incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change is a fraud.

    Junk science is infesting the media, the Internet and public schools, affecting public health, squandering your tax dollars, poisoning sick people and miseducating our children.

    Pseudoscientific claptrap abounds. Quackery is now found everywhere.

    Educate, inform yourself, take a science class.

    See CO2 and Climate Change

    Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject.

  2. Wabash says:

    Clap harder! Louder! Exxon demands it! Why don’t we have enough roads? More cars!

    I really hope you like your government-issued breathing apparatus issued to you in the year 2019.

  3. Ed Ring says:

    Well – both views equally represented. Wabash – we need our rainforests. We need energy. Over 80% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuel, and most of the remaining 20% comes from biomass – people burning trees, for the most part. We cannot clean up our planet without energy. We need to use clean nuclear energy to desalinate seawater to pump into depleted aquifers all over the world. We need to replant the rainforests and until they are big enough to bring back the clouds and rain, we need to pump desalinated seawater back into these areas. We need more power to make more water to reforest and refill aquifers globally. And we can have train tracks along with freeways. This will mean a lot of scratches in the ground – but if you think globally you are seeing surgery on Gaia to bring her back to health.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.