The Green Anti-Christ


From top: US president Donald Trump; Dan Boyle

Last Friday, I joined the liberal loser chorus queuing up to pour disdain upon Donald Trump. His well signposted announcement that he intended to withdraw the United States from the Paris Accord on Climate Change, was the hammer on the knee most of us had been looking for.

My contribution was to tweet the headline of the Berliner Courier newspaper. It read Erde an Trump: Fuck you! Beautiful language German.

He hadn’t surprised. His tiny world view exposed, whether to anger or ridicule, hasn’t been tempered in any way. He is what it says on the tin, albeit a vacuously empty tin.

Like a child with his hands over his ears, making compensatory noise to drown out being told what he doesn’t want to hear, Trump will say and do what he wants.

He cares little about consequence. Despite his obsession to build a particular wall, his political goals are to tear down walls. Those walls of hope, fairness, and justice, those unacceptable impediments in Trump World. His instinct is to demolish them to have them replaced with his garish casino type alternatives.

His disdain, his disgust, for the environment was immediately re-inforced with his decision to appoint, Scott Pruitt, as Director of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt, a serial litigant against the previous administration’s attempts to enforce basic environmental standards, is the ultimate in fox in the henhouse appointments.

Pruitt sat smugly on his hands as the budget for environmental protection in the United States was reduced many, many times beyond decimation. The web sites of environmental agencies were denuded of content.

The demands have gone further. Not only was the publication of data on climate change being actively discouraged, the seeking of data itself was being defined as verboten. This being the ultimate Orwellian affectation.

This type of behaviour, this abhorrent barbaric behaviour, has been designed to bring froth to the mouths (and not just from our lattes) of we self styled guardians of the Earth.

At least that would be one impression. Some venting is necessary. Environmental campaigners won’t lack for anything to complain about while Trump is in office.

But maybe, just maybe, environmentalists should learn to embrace Trump in all his awfulness.

Campaigns highlighting the need for greater public awareness, could be organised on The Donald’s whims. Instead of hiring researchers and public relations people, environmental NGOs would merely need to mirror whatever The Donald tweets, knowing that the opposite will always be the apposite.

Trump is the Anti Christ that every movement needs to define what it is and what it needs to do. We should wink knowingly as we roll our eyes, that someone with such an appalling lack of awareness is there to be, the polar opposite of where we on this planet need to be.

He is the inverted talisman of our time. He is our villain. He is the master of the Ignorverse. He is Our Donald.

Dan Boyle is a former Green Party TD and Senator. His column appears here every Thursdyay. Follow Dan on Twitter: @sendboyle

117 thoughts on “The Green Anti-Christ

    1. dav

      Denies scientific fact with some rant on a blog, welcome to the alt-right ladies and gentlemen..

      1. Zuppy International

        You’re talking about Danny Boy but I doubtt he would like to see himself characterised as alt-right

        1. dav

          oh lolz zuppy, you little scamp. I am calling YOU the denier of scientific facts. I am calling you an alt right idiot.

          1. Rob_G

            ‘alt-right’ is bandied about a bit too much these days; Zuppy isn’t an actual nazi, he just he has just come to the improbable conclusion that he is smarter than every single climate scientist, geologist, meteorolgist, and geophysicist in the world.

          2. mildred st. meadowlark

            Oh but he is. Did you not see his degree in Utter Horse Manure and Advanced Conspiracy Theory?

          3. spudnick

            Don’t forget the physicists too – ‘rockets can’t work in space because there’s nothing to push back against’. Ergo all space travel is a giant con (to add to all the other giant cons in the list)

          4. Zuppy International

            Unhlike you Rob, I take my cue from actual scientists.




            You, instead, seem to prefer the propaganda propagated by the Big Green Scam that 97% of the 78 ‘scientists’ actually surveyed by the IPCC represents some kind of victorious scientific consensus for the alarmists

            But… Science don’t work by consensus, it works by facts.

            Dogmatists – and their lobotomised minions -, on the other hand, resent facts, because these facts (climate has always changed, the earth is not over heating – never has, never will) get in the way of their active larceny.

          5. mildred st. meadowlark

            Forgive me, but I think I’d rather give credence to those who have devoted their time and energy to studying this, as opposed to some random nut job on the internet. I’m a fan of facts, you see.

          6. rotide

            Ah, that great peer-reviewed paradise the ‘no trick zone’.

            Where all the ‘actual’ scientists hang out.

          7. Nigel

            Random line from the first ‘open access’ science paper in Zuppy’s links:

            ‘Thereby, the vivid term greenhouse was introduced as
            a simple model concept for its only egplanation.’

            Actual scientists, guise.

          8. LW

            It’s actually the Clampers school of argument, post a rake of spurious links, also reputable ones that disagree with the point you’re making. Good to have you back!

          9. De Kloot

            “But… Science don’t work by consensus, it works by facts.”

            Oh, Zupster…. You see, this is where it all goes pear shaped for you…
            Scientific consensus is exactly how ‘science’ works. You know… communicate and publicize your findings, then replicate and peer review. Note; this process isn’t opinion based – results must be repeatable. Only then will it become something close to an accepted fact. It’s a powerful thing, consensus.

    2. Clampers Outside

      In Zuppy’s defence…. (don’t do it, the mob will go doolally! … feck the mob whomever they be!)…

      So, in Zuppy’s defence, can anyone cite where the claim that ‘97% of scientists agree’

      From my understanding it comes from a student paper on scientists attitudes, and the sample was less than a hundred and taken, I believe from a group at an environmental gig of sorts, so likely lean that way anyway, as opposed to a random sample.

      To my question again, anyone know where the “97% of scientists” comes from or is it just that the number feels right… and believe it’s the latter.

      I’m only asking a question of a common claim, ta

      1. Nigel

        Well, nobody invoked the 97% thing here (unless I missed it. Did I?), so why ask people to defend it? Why assert its apparent dubiousness as a defence of Zuppy? Zuppy deplores all of current climate science that supports the idea of ACC. He’s saying it’s not just wrong, he’s saying it’s an active and malicious deception. You can’t defend that by suggesting we ought to be giving that 97%, figure, which nobody else brought up, the side-eye. Frankly if the entire world population of scientists didn’t include more than 3% dogged contrarians, crackpots, sellouts or honest skeptics I’d be fairly shocked, but the overall consensus seems to remain very much in its favour.

        1. Clampers Outside

          He brought it up Nigel.

          I’m just noting that it’s a lie based on BS.
          Asking if anyone else believes the lie is what I’ve done.

          Clearly you state that you do go with that, as the consensus, not because it’s empirically true, but because it feels right as most believe it.

          That’s all I was getting at. I didn’t ask anyone to defend it, just if anyone believed it. Thanks

          1. MoyestWithExcitement

            “I’m just noting that it’s a lie based on BS.”

            LOL! *How* are people still trying to have normal conversations with you?

          2. Nigel

            You are literally lying to my face about what I said in the very comment you are replying to. Don’t do that.

          3. Nigel

            ‘Clearly you state that you do go with that, as the consensus, not because it’s empirically true, but because it feels right as most believe it.’

            Nowhere do I state this. This is a lie. I think you genuinely don’t realise this, which is why you really shouldn’t throw accusations of vagueness around the way you do. You got some very, very specific answers there that show there is, indeed, an overwhelming consensus. You should take issue with the likes of Zuppy and jusayinlike whose goal is to create a vague ‘feeling’ that the consensus is crumbling or that it’s not founded on scientific study.

            ‘I’m just noting that it’s a lie based on BS.
            Asking if anyone else believes the lie is what I’ve done.’

            What lie? The 97%? You don’t know where the claim came from or what the paper was or what study it was part of, and yet you accuse others of vagueness. You have been given very specific links about the consensus and yet you say it’s ‘a lie based on BS’ even though you can’t say what the lie is or where it’s being promoted and how it’s been shown to be false.

            I still can’t quite get over that you are criticising others for vagueness after raising this unspecified, unlinked, unquoted study and asking if people ‘believe’ it. That’s some neck.

          4. jusayinlike

            Nigel please see the Guardian links below in relation to IPCC “scientist” Phil Jones fudging the figures and getting caught, I welcome any reply you have in relation to this..

          5. Nigel

            Ah, I see now (why do the comments keep getting muddled around so it’s not clear who’s replying directly to what?) where Zuppy invoked it, vaguely, and you followed his lead, vaguely, as if this was the only study ever performed on the matter and regarded as somehow definitive. Given the nature of Zuppy’s other citations, perhaps your skepticism would be more usefully directed at Zuppy.

          6. jusayinlike

            Blah blah zuppy blah blah zuppy..

            seriously, you can do better than that ffs..

            You mentioned others being vague..

            What’s your opinion on Phil Jones fudging figures and getting caught and the IPCC rowing back heavily on all their doomsday predictions..

            Your very capable of speaking Nigel and I’m interested in what you have to say about what I’ve mentioned above..

          7. Nigel

            Why don’t you tell me what you think jusayinlike. Share your analysis. Don’t fudge any details or data.

      2. Listrade

        Not sure these guys would be classed as “students”:;jsessionid=463EF94A6C8A9D898490443EEED60E0D.ip-10-40-1-105

        The TLDR from their abstract is:

        1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

        2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

          1. Dan Boyle

            Inckuding that it is 100% wrong? It’s the percentage of peer reviewed papers.. The figure speaks for itself.

          2. Clampers Outside

            I think the point that 97% believe I’m climate change is a bit different to 97% believe humans are the direct cause of that change.

            I am nitpicking intentionally as vagueness is too commonly accepted as truth these days, which can result in poor policy in any sector.
            It’s the vagueness I’ve issue with, mostly. And how that translates into a definitive in those who accept that vagueness….

          3. Listrade

            The paper I linked to is different. In that they reviewed the 97% claim by reviewing the papers on climate research, not questioning the authors. 2412 papers to be exact. They read the papers and judged whether they supported the principle of climate change and CO2 emissions.

            The results varied from 90% to 100% agreement depending how you breakdown the results. The higher agreement was among those with specific expertise in climate science or the science they were reporting on (e.g. oceanography). Basically, the published works of scientists agrees with the consensus. particularly when the individual is an expert in that area.

          4. Nigel

            If you’re combating vagueness it might help to be considerably less vague yourself. You can’t really nitpick meaningfully if you don’t know what you’re talking about, which you clearly don’t. You keep referring to a 97% claim with no reference to what specific claim you mean. But I guess maybe something about this approach feels right to you?

    1. Dan Boyle

      Please do. I’ve never seen it brought up here before, and rarely by anyone who knows what they’re talking about.

      1. ollie

        To recap:
        Dan’s party led legislation to promote polluting diesel engines.
        Let’s look at some verified stats:
        In the UK, 7,000 deaths a year are caused by diesel engine vehicles.
        In London, diesel vehicles account for 25% of air pollution.
        70% of cars sold in Ireland in 2015 had diesel engines.

        If you want to discuss the environment you can’t ignore the Green Party’s past mistakes.

        1. bisted

          …and for the day that’s in it…which Environment Minister gave the go ahead for the Poolbeg Incinerator…

        2. Dan Boyle

          As you’ve been told again and again and again. The Green Party legislation was emission based and was in no way linked to favouring any fuel type. Neither did John Gormley ever, ever, give the go ahead to the Poolbeg incinerator, doing everything in his power to stop it.
          But hey if these things are stuck in your heads then they must be the truth.

          1. Increasing Displacement

            “was emission based”

            Who exactly were you listening to or did you just make stuff up?
            You know to buy a lower emissions car someone has to mine,transport, refine, transport, fabricate, transport and sell that car? Plus the fact the other one is now needing disposal. Did you factor any of that into your clown equations?

            Should have been based on efficiency or should have been based on fuel bought.

        3. rotide

          ‘In the UK, 7,000 deaths a year are caused by diesel engine vehicles.’

          The fact you think this stat is in any way relevant to pollution merely proves Dan’s point about you not having a single notion what you are talking about.

  1. Alan

    President of America pulling out of the Paris Accord. Theresa May saying she is willing to tear up human rights to fight terror…… How do we put these people in power???

        1. Clampers Outside

          If there’s more like you I might open up a shop selling crap for End Of Dayers!
          Long life tinned beans and water sanitising tablets… could make a fortune.

          Gonna need more abd more paranoia though, keep telling yourself and others that she’s Hitler… please,please please do!

          thanks, you’re the best

          1. Alan

            lol!!! You are funny guy!
            I never called May a Hitler. But I did criticize her for saying she will tear up human rights yesterday. Maybe if she just give the police the resources they need instead of cutting their numbers might be a start. It was a disaster of a campaign on her part. So many u turns. Not taking part in debates. Do you think she is the best for the Brexit negotiations? What happens there will really effect Ireland. Do you think it was a good campaign she ran?
            Do you think also that Trump leaving the Paris accord was a good thing?

      1. Cian

        Sorry, I wasn’t clear. When I said “something, something, something, Hitler” my meaning was that Hitler was democratically elected. If anything I was I was trying to imply that Trump and May are far, far from Hitler. But all three were voted in by the people.

    1. Nigel

      Whiners preemptively whining about whinefests. Whiners whining about whiners preemptively whining about whinefests. WE’RE CAUGHT IN A WHINELOOP!

      1. I'm "alright" Jack. Mad Jack is on annual leave.

        Whiners whining about whiners whinging – that’s Broadsheet’s USP alright

  2. bisted

    …hiya Dan…thought you would be in the UK today exercising some of your franchises…

    1. Dan Boyle

      I no longer have a UK residency and have no vote there. My dual citizenship allows me to vote elsewhere.

    2. Sullery

      Why do you get so upset about people voting in other countries? Irish citizens have a vote when they live in Britain, just like British citizens can vote in Ireland when they live here. Why do you have such a problem with this?

  3. curmudegon

    No mention of the Republican Party? Noam Choamsky reckons they’re the most evil organisation in the world, Trump as president is a symptom of their power.

    1. Zuppy International

      Chompsky the libtard?

      Well he would say that, wouldn’t he.

      It’s in his libtard contract.

      1. LW

        Zuppy have you rebranded? Or is Zuppy International in fact a collective, and someone else has taken the keyboard for the last while?

      2. Nigel

        ACC denier, ant-vaxxer, adds ‘tard’ suffix to words. Zuppy is interchangeable with any number of internet lowlives, in fairness.

        1. rotide

          Like Bodger?

          Terrorist attack denier, adds ‘tard’ suffix to headlines.

          The plot thickens.

      3. MoyestWithExcitement

        Here, Zup. Why are all these multinational conglomerates who are worth billions, so worried about global warming? Did the hippy commie feminazi scientists get to them as well?

    2. Junkface

      Noam Chompsky would be totally correct in saying that the US Republican Party are the most Evil group in the world. They are also fanatical extremists and should be wiped out. Total scum! They are determined to destroy the planet

  4. jusayinlike

    Why is the term “global warming” not being used anymore in relation to the environment?

    1. rotide

      Because it confuses people.

      Global warming causes chaotic conditions including harsher winters and Joe Jusayinlike on the street doesn’t get the correlation between ‘warming’ and ‘snow in july’ etc.

      Climate change is an easier sell.

      1. Dan Boyle

        It’s has been warming year on year during the last decade. Global warming is ongoing and is incremental.

          1. Zuppy International

            Dan Boyle the man who thinks 0.04% of the atmosphere controls the other 99.06% because (mumble, mumble) Science! The man who thinks that the natural cycles of the earth’s climate will kill us all. The man who unthinkingly parrots the alarmist dogma in a desperate attempt to keep his green agenda between the rails.

            Let’s start’s at the beginning Dan and listen to a Nobel physicist destroy the fundamental basis of your argument.


        1. LW

          Have you ever read a link you’ve posted Clampers? The answer in the article is that no, it did not pause

          1. jusayinlike

            Has the IPCC had to revise down any of their predictions?

            If so, by how much, and how often have they had to revise their predictions?

            Anyone? lots of strong voices here..

          2. Listrade

            See the link clampers posted. It shows that scientists (IPPC being a political body) have and do adjust their predictions and update their models as more evidence comes in. This happens continually.

          3. jusayinlike

            Clampers, so far you’re the only one to coherently answer my original question about global warming..

          4. Clampers Outside

            There’s a bit at the end of Judith’s vid you linked to, where she says 52% of the professional members of The American Meteorological Society believe changes are majority man made.

            Far cry from the “97 scientists” which is still somewhat a vague claim…

          5. jusayinlike

            If nobody replies clampers, you may take your position in the centre of the internet podium..

          6. Nigel

            Heh. Clampeers gave you the only answer you wanted to hear. Are you ignoring data that disagrees with your prejudged conclusions jusayinlike?

  5. Junkface

    Also Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement very quickly because he was annoyed that the press said that Macron got the better of him in the handshake. That was leaked from WH staffers according to Seth Meyers I think. Utterly ridiculous and childish. Sorry thats an insult to children

      1. Dan Boyle

        Did you read the article jusayinlike? It confronts everything you believe to be true.

Comments are closed.