|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 7, 2007 13:14:27 GMT -5
Those of you who think that the eco-chondraic's concern is just to ask that humans be better stewards of the earth, you're being naive. Add this little nugget to the discussion: www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070506180903.aspxEco-Extremist Wants World Population to Drop below 1 BillionApparently, saving the whales is more important than saving 5.5 billion people. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, now warns mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth.
· “No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas.” New York, London, Paris, Moscow are all too big. Then again, so are Moose Jaw, Timbuktu and even Annapolis, Md.
· “We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.”
· “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.”
· “Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary.”
· At least Watson was generous and said people could still talk with one another across great distances. “Communication systems can link the communities,” he proclaimed from on high. The Watson rant kept on going calling for everything from cutting down on the population of domesticated dogs and cats to cutting down on everything else in what he called “simplify, simplify, simplify.”
Watson essentially called for humans to return to primitive lifestyles. “We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.” Just so you eco-chondriacs know what and who you are supporting. I say, if the good doctor feels that a significant reduction in the numbers of people in the world are a good thing, by all means he should lead by example. One could also wonder then why he doesn't support increasing global warming as rapidly as possible. Hasn't 'Pope Algore I' told us that billions of people are at risk of death if the earth heats up to the levels he says it will? Dr. Watson would see- or should see- that as a positive development, shouldn't he?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 7, 2007 13:23:52 GMT -5
I think the MSM has a problem. Their holy mandate is to continually try to bring fear to society but reports like this don't help them. Why? Because the more stupid and absurd stories that they detail from advocates of the HCGW theory, the more the credability of said HCGW is reduced.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 7, 2007 13:24:07 GMT -5
In a (disturbingly) similar vein: women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1752235.eceHaving large families ‘is an eco-crime’HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.
John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.
“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”
In his latest comments the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences. “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account,” he added.
Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.
The world’s population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the population growth will take place in developing countries. The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.
The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. In some countries, such as France, the government is so concerned it has introduced financial incentives for women to have more than two children.
Despite this, Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.
The suggestion has been criticised by family rights campaigners. Eileen McCloy, a geography graduate from Glasgow with 10 children, said: “How dare they suggest how many children we should have. Who do they think are going to look after our elderly?
“According to this I would have five couples’ quota of children. I believe my children will be productive members of society.” I'm not sure if anyone will pick up on another very subtle point that the greenie-weenie author from the think tank reveals, perhaps unwittingly. Even though population growth is generally flat among developed countries while the major population growth is taking place among so-called "developing nations" in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, what is the only country Guiellebaud singles out? Britain. “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.” Britain, it should be noted, is a developed country. Now, if Guillebaud's true motivation is to slow population growth, would it not make more sense to begin with the countries who are experiencing the highest population growth (which, incidentally, include many Muslim countries)? But no....he starts with the West. Now why do you suppose that is...........
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 7, 2007 18:39:38 GMT -5
Makes you think about who you are agreeing with when it comes to global warming. I stumbled across this article today and didn't even have global warming on my mind: China Boasts One Child Policy has Reduced Green House Gas EmissionsThe policy, introduced in the early 1980’s, has been condemned by international human rights agencies for including forced abortion, infanticide and sterilization as well as heavy financial and legal penalties for having children.
Speaking last month at a meeting in Oslo on the UN’s Kyoto Protocol, Hu claimed that the coercive abortion and sterilization policy has had the side effect of slowing “global warming” by limiting the population to 1.3 billion.
Demographers predict that there will be 40 million unmarried men in China by 2020 and the situation is already creating a dramatic rise in prostitution and the buying and selling of women.
The group claims credit, along with the abortion lobby groups National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood of America, and the American Civil Liberties Union, and the U.S. Supreme Court for helping to establish an international movement to decrease human population, particularly in the developing world. Here's an article that is related: Czech President: "Religion" of Environmentalism a way of "masterminding human society from above"Not much more I can add to this.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 7, 2007 20:08:26 GMT -5
The Czech president is:
>a consistent friend of the United States who just happens to recognize the threat that the Jihadists present and supports the War on Terror
>recognizes the true agenda of the global warming cultists (after all, he lived under Communism so he should be somewhat attuned to the warning signs when it's being pushed).
No wonder you never hear the MSM have anything to say about him.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on May 8, 2007 9:28:18 GMT -5
Almost all social "problems" have the same root cause...overpopulation...
So...for obvious reasons, I am leary of anyone who claims to know the solution to social issues...
Well...I guess there is one social issue that is not aggravated by overpopulation...that would be, of course, abortion...
James Taranto's "Roe Effect" is becoming more and more apparent...after only about 34 years...
Kind of hard for "pro-choicers" who make the "wrong" choice to pass along that culture to their kids...............................................
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 8, 2007 18:50:04 GMT -5
Almost all social "problems" have the same root cause...overpopulation... So...for obvious reasons, I am leary of anyone who claims to know the solution to social issues... Well...I guess there is one social issue that is not aggravated by overpopulation...that would be, of course, abortion... James Taranto's "Roe Effect" is becoming more and more apparent...after only about 34 years... Kind of hard for "pro-choicers" who make the "wrong" choice to pass along that culture to their kids............................................... Make that 2 social issues...all this overpopulation and I still cannot find the right woman for me ;D.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 8, 2007 19:04:46 GMT -5
Careful bama.
Seems I remember getting into a bit of trouble for saying that, since liberals tend to abort their fetuses at a far higher rate than do conservatives, maybe I should rethink my position and become 'pro-choice'.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 9, 2007 17:55:52 GMT -5
More.... Environmentalist Extremists Call Humanity Virus, a Cancer, Large Families Guilty of “Eco-Crime”Some excerpts of interest (to me anyway!): “The most effective personal climate change strategy is limiting the number of children one has,” the report says. “The most effective national and global climate change strategy is limiting the size of the population.”
...parents ought consider the environment first when they have a child.
The Sunday Times said the report indicated large families constitute an environmental misdemeanor or “eco-crime” as much as 4x4 SUV’s or failing to recycle. The Australian ran the headline “Children ‘Bad for Planet.”
Watson who has unapologetically called human beings the “AIDS of the Earth”, declared human beings must reduce the world’s population to less than 1 billion people, dwell in communities no larger than “20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas,” and recognize themselves as “earthlings” dwelling in a primitive state with other species.
In the book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Gore called for a "wrenching transformation of society" to save the world from man-made ecological disaster. The first principle of Gore’s “Global Marshall Plan or Strategic Environmental Initiative” is to stabilise what he believes is an overpopulated world through the power of government.
Here's a valid question, IMO: if people are harming the planet by breathing CO2 -- and of course needing transportation, goods, etc. which will put off more CO2 -- why don't those who believe this go ahead a kill themselves? Do they not care enough for the environment to make that sacrifice? Or is it better that others follow the guidelines? This is interesting as well: Vice President Gore and his wife Tipper have four children
Professor Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and his wife have three children (1 more than his study recommends)
Maurice Strong has 5 children
Something wrong with this picture? The three couples above are denying 3 other couples from having children. After all, they have enough for 6 couples -- 12 children in all. Ah yes "Do as I say, not as I do".
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 9, 2007 19:37:42 GMT -5
kevin-
There's an entire book by that exact name that chronicles liberals of all stripes telling us that we should do one thing while most assuredly not doing it themselves. You read the extensively footnoted and documented book and you go away shaking your head, wondering why anyone pays attention to these people at all.
For instance, Big Labor absolutely >loves< Prime Minister Nancy Pelosi. They host fundriasers for her, helping her to rake in literally millions of dollars from the fetes. Plus, the unions funnel additional millions to her via the union card check off proceedure (studies show that Democrat candidates receive about $75 for every $1 Republican candidates do from union coffers).
How does Pelosi return the love?
Well, she does try to exempt the Del Monte company from her Minimum Wage increase.
But get this: she refuses to allow the workers at her own restaurants or resorts to unionize, plus she allows illegal immigrants and demands non-union labor to work her vinyards!
The hypocrisy of the Left is truly breathtaking......once you learn of it (and the MSM knows but ain't about to tell us).
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 12, 2007 7:04:51 GMT -5
Seems most of Europe has been adhering to the concept of reducing population for the sake of global warming. Somehow I don't think they had that in mind though . Article: World's Largest Pro-Family Gathering Opens in Warsaw. Highlights: Organizers explained that Poland was chosen because it is a country that strives to maintain its commitment to traditional family values in spite of the pressure from fellow European Union countries.
According to the WCF, nine of the ten nations with the lowest birthrates worldwide are in Europe. Moreover, the only European country with a replacement-level birthrate is the Muslim nation of Albania.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 12, 2007 10:10:27 GMT -5
kevin-
You've got to get a copy of Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" or just pop over to his blog and read what the man has to say about Europe's population crisis. He's also a regular columnist to "National Review" and he's always a great and entertaining read.
To know what is happening- truly happening- in Europe is to understand much about why Chirac, Schroeder and Putin so opposed the military effort in Iraq, to understand what the last thing we in the US should want to do is emulate the EU and why the UN is an irrelevancy bordering on becoming a danger.
Steyn chronicles Europe's impending demise- at least as we know it- with an unflinching eye.
(edit: had wrong book title)
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 14, 2007 13:48:54 GMT -5
Why is it that conspiracy theories are almost always regarded as nutty, paranoid fantasies until right-wing America starts talking about global warming?"I'll put my money on the IPCC -- the most authoritative body of climate scientists in the world, whose work is peer reviewed; unlike the mutterings of nonscientist ideologues who dismiss the work of real scientists who, we're told, secretly want to destroy capitalism, halt technological progress and keep the poor, poor. Apparently, with the global warming conspiracy crowd, climate science is filled with a bunch of Unabombers; a collection of Ted Kaczynskis. But instead of getting the koo-koo treatment, they get prime time?" www.alternet.org/envirohealth/51566/
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 14, 2007 16:16:54 GMT -5
Assuming you have any money left after paying the incredibly high tax rate you're going to be charged by these eco-chondriacs.
Interesting that you should bring that up.
You do know that these eminent scientists refuse to peer review any works done by the anthropogenic global warming agnostics, thus neatly avoiding debate?
Rather easy to say that there is no peer-reviewed work arguing against AGW if you refuse to subject it to peer review, isn't it?
If the other side is so easily disproven, why not subject it to scrutiny and debunk it once and for all rather than duck it?
Take a gander at the global warming thread.
There are literally hundreds of scientists- Nobel laureats, prize winners in their field, professor emeritus, acknowledged experts in their various fields- that do NOT believe in AGW. Wikipedia lists about 40 or so and thie list is far from exhaustive.
For some, that is exactly their agenda.
For the rest, that is exactly the result of their agenda, intentional or not.
No, it's filled with Al Gore.
Which is far worse.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 14, 2007 23:18:05 GMT -5
Jimbo- Might want to read this: www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=124be29f-6f2b-4205-a230-95842c7df162&k=54798Karl's comradesMaking Marxism relevant in this post-Soviet age of terror might seem like the mother of all struggles, but organizers of a four-day "Festival of Resistance" in Toronto are trying hard to pull it off -- and they've cast their net as widely as possible to do it.
Rather than focus on the evils of capitalism, the unlikely top billing of the opening night of the festival was devoted to a discussion about building unity between Muslims and the left; the keynote speaker was the controversial Islamic thinker Zafar Bangash, director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, who is in the news these days because he is in the midst of a heated battle to open a mosque in Newmarket -- not because he wants to see a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Desperate for new brothers in arms, Marxism appears to be doing some serious social networking. If this weekend's series of workshops at the festival is any indication, Marxism has a disparate cadre these days: green activists, the anti-war movement, the transgendered, members of First Nations, traditional Islam. Inclusiveness is the buzzword here, where the members of this hodge-podge gathering can be overheard calling each other brother and sister. Participants call this membership drive "building unity," a much-repeated mantra throughout the opening night. Self-proclaimed Marxist James Clark, who helped organize the event, said that while there are disparate groups in attendance, they can all still rally around a slogan like "Out of Afghanistan and into Kyoto." There is even a new leader to look up to. Although Cuban leader Fidel Castro may be seeing his last days, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, flush with petro- dollars, seems fit to fill the beret-andgreen- garb void.
"I think there's a new audience for socialism," said Ted Glick, an environmental activist who gave another keynote address at this Toronto gathering called, "How do we stop capitalism from destroying the planet?"
"It's really a question of finding commonality," he said. The eclectic gathering had less to do with establishing a singular vision of a state than furthering disparate agendas. If they tried, they would likely find that some of their views would be incompatible. "Out of Afghanistan (anti-war) and into Kyoto (Global warming)" as advocated by a Marxist. "It's really a question of finding commonality,"It's a "conspiracy theory" only if it can't be proven. This is conspiracy FACT.
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 9:47:19 GMT -5
You do know that these eminent scientists refuse to peer review any works done by the anthropogenic global warming agnostics, thus neatly avoiding debate?
Rather easy to say that there is no peer-reviewed work arguing against AGW if you refuse to subject it to peer review, isn't it?
If the other side is so easily disproven, why not subject it to scrutiny and debunk it once and for all rather than duck it?Sounds like a nutty conspiracy theory to me. Can you site an example of one of these scientific works that has been censored by a peer-reviewed climate publication? There are literally hundreds of scientists- Nobel laureats, prize winners in their field, professor emeritus, acknowledged experts in their various fields- that do NOT believe in AGW. Wikipedia lists about 40 or so and thie list is far from exhaustive.Sure 40 compared to about 40,000. "Among climate scientists there is consensus that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1][2][3] The debate is more vigorous in the popular media" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversyobserver.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 15, 2007 10:24:38 GMT -5
Science by consensus is not science.
Many of these exact same scientists were telling us a mere thirty or so years ago that we were all in dire peril...
from GLOBAL COOLING.
"Scientific consensus" also once said that the earth was the center of the solar system.
"Scientific consensus" once said that the horizon marked the literal 'edge' of the world and that any ship sailing to it would fall off.
"Scientific consensus" once said that rocks were created by ocean effect ("Neptunism").
Wrong then? Yes.
Wrong now? Maybe.
Again, take a look at the global warming thread here in this very Forum and you'll read up on the debate- and yes, there >IS< a debate- on the issue. No need to rehash those facts here, as this thread is written merely to point out that behind the environmentalist movement is what's left of the international socialist/communist movement.
"Scratch a Green, you find Red."
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 12:21:33 GMT -5
Science by consensus is not science. Many of these exact same scientists were telling us a mere thirty or so years ago that we were all in dire peril... from GLOBAL COOLING. "Scientific consensus" also once said that the earth was the center of the solar system. "Scientific consensus" once said that the horizon marked the literal 'edge' of the world and that any ship sailing to it would fall off. "Scientific consensus" once said that rocks were created by ocean effect ("Neptunism"). Wrong then? Yes. Wrong now? Maybe. Again, take a look at the global warming thread here in this very Forum and you'll read up on the debate- and yes, there >IS< a debate- on the issue. No need to rehash those facts here, as this thread is written merely to point out that behind the environmentalist movement is what's left of the international socialist/communist movement. "Scratch a Green, you find Red." So you can't show an example of a anti global warming article that's been censored by a peer-reviewed science publication? Rather than "Scientific consensus" try "scientific evidence." Rather than bringing up the global cooling from the 1970s why not just link to a list of right wing cliches of the uninformed? www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 12:37:18 GMT -5
science? like the FACT that co2 is a nutrient, NOT "pollution"?
like the fact that the ice core records show the warming comes FIRST then the rise in co2 levels?
like the fact that in cause = effect the effect can NEVER come before the cause?
like the reality that the last 10 years have shown no real warming and maybe slight cooling?
like the fact that there is no real way to measure a single "global tempertature"?
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 13:34:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 13:46:21 GMT -5
wrong? you must be joking?
co2 is NOT supposed to be in our atmosphere??
pollution is stuff that is NOT supposed to be in something.
please explain how the science of cause = effect is "wrong" according to you?
please explain how a single global temperature can be found?
taking several readings from around the globe do NOT equate to a "global temperature" it is an average of the readings in those selected areas but NOT "global" by any stretch.
as to your personal insult not sure why you cant discuss the issue instead of me?
by the way "you are wrong" is NOT a rebuttal of anything i posted.
YOU made the claim, how am i wrong please?
show proof that co2 is NOT a nutrient! show proof that co2 is NOT supposed to be part of our atmosphere please!
so proof that in a cause = effect relationship how it is possible for the effect to come first?
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 13:59:26 GMT -5
wrong? you must be joking? co2 is NOT supposed to be in our atmosphere?? pollution is stuff that is NOT supposed to be in something. please explain how the science of cause = effect is "wrong" according to you? please explain how a single global temperature can be found? taking several readings from around the globe do NOT equate to a "global temperature" it is an average of the readings in those selected areas but NOT "global" by any stretch. as to your personal insult not sure why you cant discuss the issue instead of me? by the way "you are wrong" is NOT a rebuttal of anything i posted. YOU made the claim, how am i wrong please? show proof that co2 is NOT a nutrient! show proof that co2 is NOT supposed to be part of our atmosphere please! so proof that in a cause = effect relationship how it is possible for the effect to come first? Hmmm. Either you're a super genius from outer space who's come to explain to humanity that all of science is wrong or... www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21201Can you provide me with one reputable source that endorses your position or must I just assume you don't understand the issue?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 14:07:45 GMT -5
all of science is wrong? where did i make such a claim please?
i presented the real science YOU are the one claiming it is wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 14:08:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on May 15, 2007 14:10:32 GMT -5
all of science is wrong? where did i make such a claim please? i presented the real science YOU are the one claiming it is wrong! By "real science" do you mean right-wing talking points for people to lazy to fact check?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 14:14:53 GMT -5
from the link
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must either regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases or give a reasonable explanation for why it cannot or will not do so, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 2 in a 5 to 4 decision."
since water vapor is far and away the largest component of "greenhouse gases" how do you propose we regulate clouds?
since ALL animals exhale co2 including humans how do you propose we regulate BREATHING?
since when does a supreme court ruling equate to "science"?
since we all die if co2 is removed from the air how can something REQUIRED for life as we know it be "polluition"?
how are we going to regulate volcanoes? you do know they spew co2 24 hours a day from thousands of locations all over the globe?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 14:16:20 GMT -5
jimbo do you want actual discussion of the issue or just personal insults?
so far YOU have given NOTHING to dispute the FACTS i presented you claimed were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on May 15, 2007 14:18:06 GMT -5
I am encouraged....
As long as scientists are still arguing about the existence, cause and effect of man-made global warming, then I know that the debate is not over...
As far as "right-wing" vs. "left-wing" positions on the subject...they are all worthless as tits on a boar....
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on May 15, 2007 14:22:41 GMT -5
since when does a supreme court ruling equate to "science"? Well, as of May 14, 2007, the Supreme Court transcends science... I wonder when they are going to rule on Dr. Spencer's 2007 hurricane predictions? And have they convicted anyone of fraud for last year's predictions?
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 15, 2007 15:10:07 GMT -5
from wiki
"The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.[6]"
essential for a warm and stable climate conductive to life......WOW i said co2 was required for life as we know it!
something required for life is by definition, NOT pollution.
|
|