Why I block Twitter's environmental Taliban

Why I block Twitter's environmental Taliban

By James Delingpole

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100186212/why-i-block-twitters-environmental-taliban/




(Photo: Repeal the Act)

      Ever since he christened the green lobby the "environmental Taliban" my respect for George Osborne has risen enormously. What was even more amusing was when four green activist organisations hurried forward to self-identify: In a joint letter to Mr Osborne, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the RSPB and WWF-UK said they would be "most grateful" if he could clarify his comments. Andrew Pendelton, the head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth, said: "If he has made this comment, it is potentially deeply offensive. It is offensive to us as professionals working in these organisations, but also to the millions of people who support these organisations. Offensive? Hopefully. Accurate? Most definitely. One of the reasons our economy is in so parlous a state, our energy policy so shambolic and our countryside and its wildlife being murdered by gangs of wind-farmers is because the environmental lobby is so shrill and powerful. Like their black-flag-waving cousins on the subcontinent's North West Frontier, the environmental Taliban exert an influence out of all proportion to their numbers.

      As the recession deepens and anthropogenic global warming theory starts to look increasingly threadbare, so the anti-growth agenda and artificially inflated energy prices being pushed by the hardcore greenies is becoming less and less attractive to the silent majority. Unfortunately for the silent majority, its the empty vessels and savage ideologues of the environmental Taliban who continue to make the most noise. I've had a few brushes with these people myself recently on Twitter. They've taken great umbrage, apparently, over the fact that rather than engage with their fatuous arguments (in 140 characters? Yeah. That would work.) I tend usually to press the block button. Normally, I wouldn't give them the oxygen of publicity. But on this occasion I will, for they've given me the perfect excuse to write about a problem I've been wanting to blog about for some time, viz. "Who the hell are these people? Where do they come from?"
      So, here are the Twitter self-descriptions of some of my recent irritants.

1.       Science Writer – expert on renewable energy. Modest too. Tweeting news & views in a personal capacity.
2.       Tweeting in a personal capacity about: feminism, sustainability, the media, popular culture of all types.
3.        International environmental and climate change consultant.
4. ex Astrophysicist. Science teacher. Skeptic. My views are mostly those of other people, but not my school's.
5. A budding scientist from the gutter…
6. Novelist, university lecturer, eco-worrier
7. Ethical investment, climate, politics, amateur radio, organic food, marmalade and more.
8. Norfolk County Council Green Party Councillor. Environmental activist.
9. Earth-worshipping liberal shakedown artist. Sweary economics campaigner
10. Full-time cycling environmentalist extraordinairre. Husband. Daddy.
11. With degrees in Geology, Hydrogeology & Environmental Politics; focussed on the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems.

      Can you see what they have in common? Obviously none of these environmental Taliban types is exactly alike but I do notice one or two similar characteristics cropping up again and again.

1. They are often scientists manque (or science teachers: which is pretty much the same thing) for whom it clearly matters very much that the world sees they have a scientific background, even though, mysteriously, things didn't sufficiently come together for them to find gainful employment in the field for which they were trained. (Bitter? Eux?

2. They pride themselves on being "skeptics" with the US spelling. Just like the Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh, Graham Linehan gang which regularly boasts about how scientifically sciencey it is by dissing homeopathy and sneering at climate change "deniers."

3. Few if any of them works in the private sector. (Or if they do, they work in sectors like consultancy which depend almost wholly for their work on an ever-enlarging state). In other words the very notion of government spending being reduced is total anathema to them.

4. They are keen to tell you how nice they are – as evinced by their concerns about "sustainability" or by cloying references to their parental/marital status. Having a public image as a good person really matters to them: and they very likely to believe this too, which is why they've never stopped to consider their own real, underlying motivation or that the causes they support might be more flawed than they realise.

5. Not one of them contributes anything useful to the economy. They are the parasite class Mark Steyn warns us about in After America: oozing the sense of entitlement which comes from having a university degree, but handicapped by a qualification (usually something in the field of ecology or climate science) which fits them only for a career (government advisor, sustainability consultant etc) leeching off the backs of the productive sector of the economy.

       This is why I don't argue with them. There is simply no point. Their careers and their sense of self-worth are entirely dependent on green clap trap.