When the facts change , why don't environmentalists?

Objecting to the characterisation of environmentalists the other day as "anti-human," our friend DenMT declared, "The whole argument as espoused here is so interminably bound up in woolly 'philosophical and political underpinnings' that a grasp of the real world appears to have been lost."

I must confess, I found that amusing, particularly when you consider the many mad and inhuman things said by many environmentalists, the many fatuous environmental predictions of disasters that never came to be (and more of those here), the many misunderstandings of how the world works -- of property rights, for example, or common law. Or price signals and markets. Of the potentially infinite supply of resources when you realise that the ultimate resource is the human mind.

In fact, I laughed all over again when I recalled the statement as I read this last night on Samizdata:

I still think of myself as an environmentalist. Almost everyone is interested in their living conditions. So I hope in that sense you do, too.

My problem with greenery is that I also think. Something that many greens have given up decades past. It was apparent to me even 20 years ago, that most were adapting their understanding of the problems - and indeed inventing problems - to match their prefabricated concept of a good society. I tried to fix that. I failed.

There are lots of exceptions, and I still have a lot of time for those who hang on to rationality. But unfortunately they tend to feel too much loyalty to the Green brand to distinguish themselves from it. Maybe this is good politics, but I think it is bad policy. Fostering craziness leads to the growth of craziness.

Read on for some certified gold-plated, real nut-job craziness of the type that'd be right at home in Russel Normans' lounge, about which Guy at Samizdata asks, When the Facts Change , why don't environmentalists?