22

More Proof ENVIRONMENTALISTS are EVIL

Posted by dbhalling 3 years, 9 months ago to Science
104 comments | Share | Flag

More quotes showing that environmentalists want us all dead and are willing to lie about their agenda and supposed science.
SOURCE URL: https://hallingblog.com/2017/01/12/more-proof-environmentalists-are-evil/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
    The lies are right out in the open these days and it has no effect on the liars. This sounds like the wet nurse in AS.
    .”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology,
    Lead author of many IPCC reports
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Enyway 3 years, 9 months ago
    This saying is for environmentalists, "A fool and his brain have already parted." Obviously, their brains parted a long time ago. Their goal now is to find other fools who have departed from their brains.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      It isn't just fools with dysfunctional brains. They are spreading an evil, misanthropic philosophy attributing intrinsic value to nature, to be regarded as superior to man. That is much worse than just being fools. It's deliberate. To imply that they have poorly functioning brains lets them off the hook for responsibility for what they are doing. Cognitive determinism is not causing this.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
        The agenda is eugenics, what is confounding is the funds provided come from the aged ultra rich The Soros 86 ,Turner78 ,Bloomberg 74 ,Rockefeller101, ,Buffett86 ,and Gates the baby at 62 , most are near the end of their life.US male life expectancy is 78.25 in 2012.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          The agenda is sacrifice of humanity to nature regarded as a superior intrinsic religious value, imposed by ecological fascism. Eugenics is only one variety and means of collectivism, and the wealthy supporters are only the means of funding it. The funding is important as a means of imposing policy but it is not fundamental to the ideology driving it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
      More brainwashed graduates every June, like clock work! The new batch coming up have parents whose faces have been stuck in video games and iPhones. No communication skills , but shorthand texts. They react, their is no evaluation
      or examination. Oh, and soon they will be producing little greenbots kids. All legislatively vaccinated to beat the band. But also some young Galts ,Reardon's ,
      Taggerts ,d'Anconia's.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
        Their lack of attention span is a cognitive problem, but not the explanation for the destructive ideas being spread. Cognitive problems with conceptual thought only make it more difficult to counter.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jdg 3 years, 9 months ago
          That's a major problem for all non-left politics. I believe it's caused by the bad habit of watching TV news shows that feed you one sound bite and then change the subject.

          Of course, leftist leaders usually do know better. They just want their followers to continue not using their brains.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
          Cognitive dissonance is a result of repetitive contradictions.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
            The contradictions come first; they aren't normally caused by mental problems. The more contradictions they entrench in their minds the more difficult it becomes for them to straighten out their own thinking, which is why it is often so hopeless to reason with them. You don't have to convince them in order to stop the spreading their vile philosophy, but you do have to be able to counter the content of what they say and be able to explain what is right. That can't be done by dismissing them as psychos and nothing else. The worst of them may be dismissed that way by people of common sense, but it isn't enough to defend a correct philosophy and refute the bad. You can't refute or discuss philosophy in terms of psychological motives for believing it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Technocracy 3 years, 9 months ago
    For the UN, NGOs, and Governments its about power and control. The side effect it has of turning a large number of each electorate into unreasoning zombies plays right into their needs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bz1mcr 3 years, 9 months ago
    It is obvious this is the case, but it is great to see so many quotes where they are being honest about it. As they admit they feel justified to lie about it most of the time. Thanks for posting it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Most of them would not say they literally want to kill people. Many are still trying to pretend that it is only against "pollution". Yet the root religious premise of the viro movement, that nature is an intrinsic value superior to human life, can have no other result than killing off humanity. Their anti-private property, preservationist, anti-industrial revolution politically destroying industry, private property rights, and economic freedom is the means.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 3 years, 9 months ago
    Despite all of their public statements about the world we leave our children, it is really about eliminating the children. Gaia is more important and vulnerable!?!?!? Sick.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
    Any group that wants the population reduced to save the environment should be sent a cheap gun and the same number of bullets as the members of that group.
    That should come with a note that states: "You now have as many bullets as members in your group. Do as you say."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      You would have to include detailed instructions on how to aim it. They are already using it in the wrong direction.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 3 years, 9 months ago
        Yeah, giving such econazis a gun may endanger the wrong people
        About five minutes after I made that post, I selfishly thought it cheaper and perhaps more pertinent to send Kool-Aid with instructions to mix it with cyanide and sedative the Jim Jones way.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 3 years, 9 months ago
    -- Spoken for truth --

    The evil is embellished by straight-faced hypocrisy.
    Some celebrity pop-singer (Will E Am?) speaks at a green gathering condemning carbon, he arrived by helicopter.
    B.Streisand is discovered to have air-conditioned stables on her property.
    D.Suzuki has fathered a large family and commutes to a private island off Vancouver.
    They make speeches about the danger of rising sea levels while buying and living in expensive ocean front homes.

    Airlines, private jets, limos and SUVs carry and ferry looters to and around climate change conferences to condemn carbon.
    Celebrities make passionate pleas against carbon, high on emotional display but devoid of fact.
    Temperature records are faked by 'homogenizing' data but details of what computations were made and why are not revealed.
    Dissenters from the green religion have been hounded out of office, work, and academia, this has happened even to 'believers' who express doubts about aspects of the orthodoxy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 3 years, 9 months ago
    It is interesting that all those who are 'for the earth' want to keep it exactly as it is ignore the fact that the earth has never been this way before and won't be this way again. If they impose stability upon the earth won't they be contradicting nature instead of complimenting it? The history of the earth is change, evolution and extinction. What makes them think they know what 'nature' intends? Perhaps we should help them and make certain they become extinct.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Yes there has always been a contradiction in their demands to preserve and restore nature to some arbitrary state in the evolution of the earth. But the fundamental premise behind their manipulations is that nature as such must be preserved from man. The misanthropic nihilism in their nature worship is the essence of their ideology.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by chad 3 years, 9 months ago
        Very good point. As if man were not part of nature. Since this particular global warming stage started 12,000 years ago which is when the glaciers began to retreat I wonder what man was doing at that time to start the whole process. Perhaps we should go back to that time to find out who to blame.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          They are inconsistent in their preservationist political policies of what state to restore something to, but at root they don't care about nature changing on its own. They oppose man "exploiting" the earth and want to undo it. They are driven by hatred for man and his productivity for human life. Their idea of a proper state of humanity is primitive tribalism.

          Roxanne Quimby, the wealthy radical "counter culture" viro appointed by Obama to the National Park Foundation and who bought government policy (in the name of a "gift") to decree a National Monument in Maine, said:

          "To me, ownership and private property were the beginning of the end in this country. Once the Europeans came in, drawing lines and dividing things up, things started getting exploited and overconsumed. But a park takes away the whole issue of ownership. It's off the table; we all own it and we all share it. It's so democratic."

          They literally want to restore land to primitive pre-settlement conditions, any pre-settlement conditions. Don't bother them with details about what Indians and glaciers did.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by chad 3 years, 9 months ago
            I used to teach survival at the local college along with some other outdoor recreation classes. I took students out into the wilderness, gave them very little information about where they were and what to do to get back. While I enjoy the outdoors even camping by todays standards are much higher than life was 150 years ago. Although the challenge of overcoming extreme circumstances and returning to the safety of modern society was fun for me, even the kids did not seem to realize that if they had to live that way all the time it was not fun to be on the edge of starvation every single day of your life! The reason ancient man often had large numbers of children is that 60% of them often died before they were mature adults. Even if you managed to become a mature individual a hard winter, sudden change in weather or an unexpected disease that we would currently consider a minor threat could end your existence. If they want to live in pre-settlement conditions they should volunteer to do so and refuse anything that comes from current modern manufacturing methods including, shelter, transportation of desired goods, food, medicine. From my experience as a teacher most wouldn't last more than five days before returning crying out for more free stuff to alleviate their stress and struggles.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
              They have a romanticized fantasy of an effortless Garden of Eden utopia if only we endorse primitivism. The modern version is promoted in terms of "it's for the economy" -- they think wilderness restoration is the foundation for a "tourist economy", as if no production is necessary and most people would spend their earnings from blankout traveling to indulge themselves in scenic hiking in the swamps, funded by "investment" amounting to trickle down economics from government picnic tables.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 3 years, 9 months ago
      If they got their way the Earth's ecosystem would not become stable. As you say, it never was. The eco-nuts only assume it would be, because they hold a mystical belief in an intelligent "Gaia".

      All these so-called climate scientists with computer models that don't even "predict" the present should try predicting that "ideal" future and see how much they'd enjoy living in it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 3 years, 9 months ago
    Some people can't tell the difference between climate science and climate politics. Scientists view climate change as something to be studied and understood while politicians view it as an opportunity to gain political power. To the scientist it is a puzzle to be solved to the politician it is a tool to be exploited. The political class is always looking for tools that will enhance their power. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." H. L. Menkin
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
      Hi ProfChuck,
      A scientist by definition would be interested in reality. The power of pull is strong in the climate science field. So many become frauds and whores deceiving their field, colleagues and the public. They Offer desired results to the grantors and funders then watch the money flow. The professor's are authors of alarming disaster fiction. While the data gatherers smudge the true numbers to fit the narrative. Laws are put into place in Oregon restricting the climate global warming change whatever to man's blame.It is a worldwide network of deceit centered in the UN. The best way to deal with weather, is have a Roark designed shelter.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ProfChuck 3 years, 9 months ago
        In my work as an astronomer I have studied planetary atmospheres; Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and even Earth. I have a pretty good idea how difficult it is to model such complex structures. Simply stated the projections made by climate fear mongers are not possible with current computer modeling technology. Technically climate dynamics is chaotic which means that computer models are extremely sensitive to the input parameters. Slight variations in the input data lead to wildly different end points. This opens the door to a "pick and choose" approach to the analysis process. The results can be benign or catastrophic. If it is the intent to instill fear there are plenty of catastrophic results from which to choose. That, however, does not make them real. It does provide ammunition to politicians that want to use climate science as a weapon.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
          Dhalling video above clearly explains your succinct points.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
            While I have not had the chance to fully processes the video, I think this guy has great points. The video embarrasses me that I did not see these points. It is wonderful for someone to provide that sort of insight.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
              Be very careful with that video presentation. He is very much a Rationalist and not the erudite scientific expert he presents himself to be. Anyone who leads with repetitious denunciations insinuating that his targets all assume the earth is flat and who repeatedly insists how rational he is himself, while claiming to have found a simple magic bullet refutation that everyone else has somehow missed, should set off alarms. Keep that in mind and watch for strawman arguments if you invest the time to go through the details of his technical claims in between his repeated insistence of how logical he is.

              An example of his rationalism exploiting mathematical equations elsewhere in his blog https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/1... announcing his "World’s 1st Scientific Paper on Ontological Mathematics", in which he argues that a need to change "boundary conditions" required to make a partial differential equation "produce realistic behavior" implies an "active noumenal mind governing the behavior of physics" -- in contrast to "equations of physics that don't change" making it only "appear that this mind is dead (i.e. inactive) and a dead mind is no mind at all. In order to detect mind in physics then you have to see that mind making a choice about the way reality should behave."

              His trying to deduce a "noumenal mind" from time dependent boundary conditions with feedback needed to "produce realistic behavior" from a "static partial differential equation" is more an argument that he is a crackpot with a dangerously misused smattering of technical knowledge:

              "So, the device is a light trap and its behaviour is determined by the mathematical boundary conditions of the Fourier Transform solution to its real-time thermal equation. So you have light, being trapped by matter, with thermal behaviour dependent upon the mathematical form of the boundary conditions in the Fourier Transform describing it, and the form of the equation changes in order to replicate realistic behavior.

              "These are all of the ingredients one would expect to be involved in an Ontological Mathematical demonstration of mind operating behind the scenes.

              "In essence, Ontological Mathematics states that everything is governed by mathematical, noumenal mind. Inserting mind into physical theories is said to be one of the tasks that occupies the Pythagorean Hyperborean Illuminati these days. It’s an important one – explaining how the entire physical world is governed by mind is essential to strengthening the kind of evidence for Ontological Mathematics that will convince scientists."

              And

              "Inserting mind into physics is said to be one of the 'holy grails' of Ontological Mathematical research. Mike Hockney discusses the problem in the last several of his 'God Series' books. You see, the Pythagoreans are already quite convinced that mind is the basis of existence, and you will likewise become convinced of that too if you are rational and if you read Hockney’s philosophical-mathematical-scientific treatise."

              Aside from his mysticism, notice how his technical emphases in the rationalizations are so peculiar: why focus on a Fourier transform as a method that is irrelevant to the underlying physics with his "mathematical boundary conditions of the Fourier Transform solution". Why "Fourier Transform solution" and not just the "solution" of the boundary value problem? It's the only method he knows and he can't make a distinction? Or does demonstrating a "noumenal mind" he finds "behind the scenes" depend somehow on Fourier transforms in his rationalizations, which wouldn't work for any other method of solving the same boundary value problem, let alone depend on the physical law itself as opposed to any method of solving an equation?

              Or how about his pompous and supposedly erudite statement in his greenhouse speech in which he asserts that partial differential equations are all about heat flow?: "This is from Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations, which is actually all about the study of heat flow since that's where and how Joseph Fourier developed the Fourier transform and that's what applied partial differential equations eventually I'll get into." Is the original heat equation the only PDE he knows? Didn't he look at the rest of the book, or the table of contents?

              Spend more time on this guy at the peril of your own priorities.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
                All good information, but his presentation on the main three points makes good sense.

                1) The -18C black body calculation is incorrect and based on a fallacy.
                2) Heat is the flow of energy and heat only flow from hot to cold.
                3) There is no way for radiation from the cold atmosphere to heat up the surface.

                And his point that the term greenhouse is misleading since a real green house works in a totally different manner than the AGW advocates describe the CO2 green house effect.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                  The greenhouse effect is usually described as trapping heat so it can't escape. It isn't claimed that heat flows from cold to hot. The sun and man-made energy is the source of the heat. Watch out for his strawman arguments and rationalizing.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
                    Nope. You can't trap heat that is not there. If a black body is only -18C and there is no other heat source, you cannot get about that temperature.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                      Obviously the heat is there. No one is arguing that heat at -18C is heating itself as the source of warming. The major source is the sun. If it weren't we wouldn't be alive to talk about it.

                      If you want to spend the time on him you should look at what is in fact being calculated in accordance with what principles in the specific "models" he claims to be refuting.

                      I don't know if he ever got to claiming to reveal that with claimed reliable references because I gave up and stopped listening, and didn't go back to it once I looked further and saw the other crack pot stuff he is promoting in addition to his polemical insistence on how rational he is and all his targets assume the earth is flat. To me he has no credibility and isn't worth any more time.

                      And as one of the signers of the original Global Warming Petition Project I am no fan of the climate hysteria movement and its exploitation of "models" in the name of science for their ideology. But associating opposition to that with kooks does not help.

                      If you are interested in thermodynamic arguments then by all means pursue that because it can be very interesting, but I don't have the time for this clown.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          Physicist Freeman Dyson on a famous discussion with Enrico Fermi on 'models': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV41Q...

          "I arrived at Chicago and knocked on Fermi's door, and he was very polite. I came in, and he said, 'Yes?' and I showed him the graphs on which our experiment, our theoretical numbers were plotted and Fermi's experimental numbers were plotted, and the agreement was on the whole pretty good.

          "And Fermi hardly looked at these graphs, he just put them on the desk, just glanced at them very briefly and he said, 'I am not very impressed with what you've been doing.' And he said, 'When one does a theoretical calculation, you know, there are two ways of doing it. Either you should have a clear physical model in mind, or you should have a rigorous mathematical basis. You have neither.'

          "So that was it - in about two sentences he disposed of the whole subject. Well then I asked him, well what does he think about the numerical agreement, and he said, 'How many parameters did you use for the fitting? How many free parameters are there in your method?' So I counted up. It turned out there were four.

          "And he said, 'You know, Johnny von Neumann always used to say, "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." So I don't find the numerical agreement very impressive either.' So I said, 'Thank you very much for you help,' and I said goodbye. There was nothing more to be said."

          Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge
          Anthony Watts / April 5, 2013
          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/0...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by walkabout 3 years, 9 months ago
    Does anyone know why these people apparently hate people? Why would the earth be "better" so sparsely populated by humans? Are these individuals ready to stand in the front of the "to be eradicated" line? Why is it somehow better to live in abject poverty in a "third world" cesspool? It seems the natural and logical consequences these folks envision (a planet depleted of all resources) would lead to exactly what they claim to want -- I don't get it. At least these folks -- imbued with gravitas by the movement -- admit they are lying sacks of .....
    The earth (the galaxy or the universe for that matter) is a giant recycling machine. There is only so much matter that is constantly being recycled into other forms of matter and energy. The earth is a giant carbon fuel producing machine.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      Their hatred of humanity is a religious worship of nature as an intrinsic value regarded as superior to human life. They indulge in orgies of emotion over scenic imagery and fantasized utopia of an effortless Garden of Eden uncorrupted by man, let alone industry. It's a religious reversion to primitivism, rejecting the human virtues illustrated in Ayn Rand's novels.

      See Ayn Rand's The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, an expanded edition of her original anthology The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution from the early 1970s. https://estore.aynrand.org/p/265/retu...

      The title essay "The Anti-Industrial Revolution" dissected the new environmentalist movement (then still called the "ecology movement") that had just risen out of the violent New Left of the late 1960s and 70s. (The original ecology movement on which it was based began in Germany in the 19th century.)

      Ayn Rand dissected the philosophical roots and meaning of the ecology movement -- the modern viro movement -- at its beginning, before it had changed its name for PR reasons because most people didn't know what "ecology" meant and when most regarded it is an idealistic popular movement only opposed to "pollution".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      It is a hatred for reason ultimately, which manifests itself in a belief that anything man does is evil (to the earth is an excuse) because he has the ability to reason and create.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 3 years, 9 months ago
    They'll get their wish if Yellowstone caldera erupts. I don't think preparedness will be their forte. Environmentalist will be wiped from the face of the earth.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 3 years, 9 months ago
    Unless some of this was out of context (which I
    doubt), it is sickening.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      The viro movement itself has been sickening since its beginning. It is not about stopping pollution harmful to people. Yet the public generally has no idea what they are and goes along with propaganda and emotionalism that is destroying private property rights, industry, and our freedom and right to live.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 3 years, 9 months ago
    What I do not understand is why do people not see this? I have family members that believe there is man-made global warming and no matter how many facts I give them, they refuse to not see the truth. I just do not get it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      It starts with the assumption that man is bad for the earth. That makes it easy to believe that anything we do must be having some terrible affect.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by walkabout 3 years, 9 months ago
      I guess I would just ask them, so what? We as a thinking, reasoning species can adapt, adjust and overcome. Why is NOW the standard. 13000 years ago sea levels were 400 or so feet lower -- is that "ideal?" Should we be trying to trigger a new ice age? Humans don't do real well during colder times (see the mini ice age; the few years following the 1815 volcanic explosion (Tambora) that created social havoc, death and destruction. Would they return the Black Sea to a large fresh water lake. What is the magic of the current shoreline? We need, as a thinking, reasoning group laugh loud and long at these folks lacking science or sense.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ TomB666 3 years, 9 months ago
    Thanks Dale - I posted this to my timeline on Facebook (with credit to your blog of course.) Tom
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 9 months ago
      No Credit needed. I took it from a facebook friend. I have been collecting these and have a few more.

      “Ultimately, no problem may be more threatening to the Earth’s environment than the proliferation of the human species.”
      — Anastasia Toufexis, “Overpopulation: Too Many Mouths,” article in Time’s special “Planet of the Year” edition, January 2, 1989. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey...





      “Today, life on Earth is disappearing faster than the days when dinosaurs breathed their last, but for a very different reason….Us homo sapiens are turning out to be as destructive a force as any asteroid. Earth’s intricate web of ecosystems thrived for millions of years as natural paradises, until we came along, paved paradise, and put up a parking lot. Our assault on nature is killing off the very things we depend on for our own lives….The stark reality is that there are simply too many of us, and we consume way too much, especially here at home….It will take a massive global effort to make things right, but the solutions are not a secret: control population, recycle, reduce consumption, develop green technologies.”
      — NBC’s Matt Lauer hosting Countdown to Doomsday, a two-hour June 14, 2006 Sci-Fi Channel special. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey...
      “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” http://jiminmontana.wordpress.com/201...



      Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,



      “People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any.” http://jiminmontana.wordpress.com/201...



      “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,” Turner stated in 1996.[1]



      A leading environmentalist, Dr. Eric R. Pianka advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola in front of few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science who rose to their feet, and gave him a standing ovation.[2] Dr. Pianka attempted to deny this, but the evidence was overwhelming including his student evaluations.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
        Or this from Bill Gates he says that in order to successfully depopulate an “overcrowded world” at least 350,000 must be killed each day, and he says this can be done via vaccine programs.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          What is the source of that. It does not seem plausible that he would openly advocate depopulation through vaccines. Whatever he thinks about population control he has been dispensing medical assistance to cure and keep people alive who are sick.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Dobrien 3 years, 9 months ago
            Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:

            "The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent

            Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vac...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
              Doing a great job with health care and reproductive health services does not mean killing people with vaccines. Population growth falls in advanced societies. The quote fragment is clumsy out of context, but should not be contorted.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 3 years, 9 months ago
                Rome had a problem with low birth rates that we see in all industrialized countries. In some cases shockingly low: With the births per woman at 2.1 considered as "replacement rate", U.S. and many European nations are around 1.8. Singapore is around 1.2 (or less depending on who is counting). China which forced women to have an IUD after 1 child is now offering to remove it for free to try to get to 2 children per woman. Rapid population decline causes serious demographic dislocations.

                As we become more educated and healthier, populations will naturally drop. Because of demographics, even with lower birth rates the world population should continue to rise until about 2050. The consensus seems to be for a peak of about 10 billion, but I suspect the decrease will be sharper and we'll peak at 9.5 billion from then population will continue to drop.

                At some point uterine replicators and other mechanisms to ease the effort of having a child will be introduced to try to stabilize the population at some number.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JuliBMe 3 years, 9 months ago
    Green is the new Red and has been since the wall came down. These people are just communists underground. Their aim is power and there's no way they could control a population in the billions. So, a reduction of the "surface population" is necessary. Their followers, like the "kids" of Silicon Valley, are just virtue signaling. But, if they have problems learning and growing, because of their monetary wealth, they will become the communist leaders with the same power agenda.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
      The viros are at root much worse than communists or socialists. The Marxists claimed they were for mankind and promised they would bring prosperity. They sacrificed individuals to their reification of the collective and destroyed economies, but at least they claimed to be pro-human. The viros want to sacrifice humans to nature and advocate deprivation in economics. The left has seen that collectivist economics does not work and embraces the failure as their goal. Their misanthropic nihilistic nature worship is much worse in its roots than the old communists and socialists.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JuliBMe 3 years, 9 months ago
        I'm not really interested in what the left, as a whole, CLAIM they are. I'm commenting on what they ACTUALLY are after, and that is power with their delusional ignorant followers arrogantly virtue signaling with quite a lot of them having no idea what it is they are advocating. I tire of the arguments over the "nuances" of the labels. The left or as some call them, STATISTS, are evil people overall no matter if all of them agree on every fine point of the method for their aims or not.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
          Concepts are not nuances of labels. The nature of the viro movement as anti-reason, misanthropic nihilism is very important to understand.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by JuliBMe 3 years, 9 months ago
            The "concepts" has but ONE final goal or aim as do all the left's "concepts". POWER over all people to comply with their wishes. If people do not realize that and continue to debate the "merits" of their "concepts", they will miss the march of the left and succumb.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
              We are not debating "merits" of variations of the left. The ethical principles driving them are fundamental. The political decline of the country is a result of philosophy. Opposing "POWER" with no thought of the cause will not stop it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by JuliBMe 3 years, 9 months ago
                I'm sorry, but YOU are the one who brought up the "variations" of the left by bringing up your debate points on my original comment.

                THE CAUSE is evil. Once you are able to recognize evil, in all its forms, which many people are obviously not able to do, you can fight it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                  Evil is not a thing. The cause is human action in accordance with bad ideas of moral philosophy. The ideology of the viros is different and worse than the Marxists. You cannot stop either by ignoring their philosophies of irrationalism and sacrifice, and it is not enough to say only what you oppose. It takes defending the principles of what is right -- reason and individualism. Conservatives and libertarians yelling about "evil" and "power" is hopelessly inadequate.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by JuliBMe 3 years, 9 months ago
                    Before you can combat ANYTHING, you have to recognize it for what it is. Intellectualizing evil just allows the advancement of evil in the PURPOSEFUL confusion. There is ONLY right and wrong. The only difference between the two is DEGREE. Once an INDIVIDUAL knows the difference between the two, they can combat it in ALL it's forms.

                    The left are MASTERS at intellectualizing issues for this purpose. You are caught in their web.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                      Recognizing the importance of ideas is not "caught in a web". Ranting about "evil" with no understanding will not stop the political decline of this country.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by JuliBMe 3 years, 9 months ago
                        Obviously, by arguing the same point ad nauseam and calling my original comment and responses to you a "rant", you don't recognize that there might be any importance of MY ideas. So, you are caught in the web of arrogance of your intellectualism. Very similar to people of the left.

                        Do you deny that the ultimate goal of all leftists, whatever "concepts" they flog, is power over all?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 9 months ago
                          You have mischaracterized and dismissed the importance of philosophical ideas in determining the course of politics as "nuances of the labels" and a "web of arrogance of intellectualism". You have not discussed the role of ideas or what your own ideas are at all. You don't seem to understand any of this. You have only repeated that you oppose "evil" and "POWER".
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by JuliBMe 3 years, 9 months ago
                            NO. I RESPONDED to YOUR response to MY comment about the SOURCE thread. YOU will not acknowledge that what I said has ANY VALUE. AND, you don't seem to be able to answer a DIRECT question. YOU cannot highjack a comment of MINE, disparage it, and EXPECT ME to GIVE to YOU what YOU will NOT give to me. RESPECT. Good evening.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 3 years, 9 months ago
    Each of these people can relieve themselves of the obvuios stress they are feeling on this matter by choosing to remove themselves from the picture, aka kill themselves. Its the most sincere, ecoconcious thing they could do AND they no longer need worry.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 3 years, 9 months ago
    These silly bicamerals don't get the fact that eliminating Humans from the earth would ultimately put the earth in harms way. Without humans, the earth is nothing but resources for other conscious beings and just eliminating a few humans, oh say 6,750,000,000 might make it easier for the parasitical humanoids to rule over what's left...but they too would soon be in trouble too.
    On a Fly on the wall session I engage in every week with some brilliant scientist and individuals; we came to the conclusion as to why the earth is not experiencing some of the big changes the other planets in our solar system are is specifically because...on earth...there is life! Not just life; plants, animals etc but "Conscious" life.
    Kinda makes one wonder if this thing they have against carbon is a knowing assault upon life itself. It is the life on earth that keeps the earth alive, as they say. The earth, minus life, would just be a dead rock.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo