That must explain why roosters crow all the time.
Advocate wrote:OGIONIK wrote:global warming, who cares? after the planet warms to oven like temps humanity will be forced as a whole to rethink how we live, and if 95% of the population dies off we will have an easier time restarting our society with less religion and all that dumb ****.
look at the bright side.
Considering what man has done to the earth, and to each other, he perhaps shouldn't survive much longer.
I believe this comment offers us an excellent insight to the predispositions of the AGW cultists. They view mankind as some form of contaigon on the planet, no more entitled to survival than some species of rodent or any of millions of microbes. In keeping with this predisposition they see as rational a program of action that could condemn billions of people to extinction.
This kind of thinking has already restored malaria to its former stature as a disease killer of millions, even though an effective pesticide remedy has long been available and which could be used very effectively in a less harmful and morer restrained way than formerly.
It truly amazes me that this aspect of the question gets so little public attention.
George,
This kind of doom porn is nothing new and not confined to AGWers. It is well entrenched in the psyche of environmental priests and their followers. A few excepts to illustrate it :
* Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: "It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."
* John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: "I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."
* Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: "We're at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that's roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal."
* David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
* David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: "It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
* Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: "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."
* Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: "The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man."
* John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: "Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!"
* Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
* Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
* Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
* Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
Sounds good to me.
At the least, we shouldn't encourage higher populations, such as through tax subsidies for having children. Also, we need more family planning programs throughout the world.
There is little doubt in my mind that overpopulation is already bringing tremendous hardships on people, depredation of the environment, destruction of animal and insect life, etc. This goes far beyond GW.
The evidence is so overwhelming that the intellect of those arguing otherwise is suspect. All one has to do is read just a bit.
One points out that, while the -world- may have an overpopulation problem, the US emphatically does not; we'd barely be breaking even if not for immigration. Other western countries have even lower birth rates; in Japan it's below replacement level, and they don't have immigration to keep the numbers up.
There isn't really a food shortage either, despite some less than rosy predictions in the last half-century. Most famine is associated, not with drought, but with political disruption that prevents distribution of food aid. (This doesn't say that food aid is worthless; it's just that we generally get it where it needs to go, except when we're stopped from doing so by the local government.)
Nothing wrong with family planning throughout the world, though one points out that if you're engaged in subsistence farming, a larger family really is an asset (though not larger than you need for your parcel of land).
The major problem with overpopulation is the possibility of shortages of "advanced" resources; energy is the biggie here, since an industrialized society consumes a lot more juice per individual than a pastoral one. On the other hand, industrialized societies also tend to produce a lot more scientists and inventors than pastoral ones, so it's entirely possible we'll work our way around the particular problems when the time comes.
Advocate wrote:Sounds good to me.
At the least, we shouldn't encourage higher populations, such as through tax subsidies for having children. Also, we need more family planning programs throughout the world.
There is little doubt in my mind that overpopulation is already bringing tremendous hardships on people, depredation of the environment, destruction of animal and insect life, etc. This goes far beyond GW.
The evidence is so overwhelming that the intellect of those arguing otherwise is suspect. All one has to do is read just a bit.
Puerile sophistry -- at best !
This is the sort of moral and intellectual arrogance that sustained the Lennist Socialist practicioners of the development and perfection of "Socialist Man", the Nazi racist purifiers of the Aryan superman, and others of that ilk, who have inflicted so much horror and suffering on mankind. It is those who are sure they alone know what is good for you and who are ultimately willing to kill you to achieve it who are the destroyers of the human spirit and - if they had their way - humanity itself.
The AGW cultists are hardly different from their predecessors in the organized perfection of mankind. After the ghastly history of the twentieth century, it is truly remarkable that these shopworn ideas continue to have such appeal to credulous minds that should - by now - know better.
The list offered above by miniTax is very telling - both in the identities and the words of those he cited.
Quote:Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
So now the people that support the global warming theory are also in favor of or suggesting murder?
And you are ok with that?
If someone that didnt agree with the global warming theory said that you would be screaming bloody murder.
Why arent you now?
mysteryman wrote:Quote:Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
So now the people that support the global warming theory are also in favor of or suggesting murder?
And you are ok with that?
If someone that didnt agree with the global warming theory said that you would be screaming bloody murder.
Why arent you now?
My cat kills bunnies. He should be brought to trial.
mysteryman wrote:Quote:Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
So now the people that support the global warming theory are also in favor of or suggesting murder?
And you are ok with that?
If someone that didnt agree with the global warming theory said that you would be screaming bloody murder.
Why arent you now?
Contrast him with another founder of Greenpeace that became sane, Patrick Moore. He abandoned Greenpeace and now opposes much of their agenda. Moore's passion today is forestry.
"No species has ever become extinct because of logging forests," he says. "There is more diversity of life today than ever before."
Forest area in the U.S. is the same as it was 100 years ago.
Hmmm, what about the hundred species going extinct every day, or hundreds of thousands of species every year according to environmental groups? Could it be there is little or no evidence for such claims?
okie wrote:Hmmm, what about the hundred species going extinct every day, or hundreds of thousands of species every year according to environmental groups? Could it be there is little or no evidence for such claims?
In God we trust. All others must show their data. 
BTW, I suspect US area in the US is BIGGER now than it was 100 years ago, just like in nearly all rich countries. In France, it's 5% bigger and every year, land is given back to the wilderness (forests grow by 40.000 hectares per year).
If you think the AGWers (I assume that refers to people who accept anthropogenic global warming) are nuts, then you must include Tony Blair and the rest of the UK govt. (And opposition parties). Here the argument is over, and the govt is introducing a whole host of measures to reduce the UK's carbon footprint. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth is to be shown in all UK secondary (11-18 year old) schools. Only one hour ago I heard Blair describe it as entertaining and informative about the most important subject in the political arena.
Steve 41oo wrote:If you think the AGWers (I assume that refers to people who accept anthropogenic global warming) are nuts, then you must include Tony Blair and the rest of the UK govt. (And opposition parties). Here the argument is over, and the govt is introducing a whole host of measures to reduce the UK's carbon footprint. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth is to be shown in all UK secondary (11-18 year old) schools. Only one hour ago I heard Blair describe it as entertaining and informative about the most important subject in the political arena.
You know, a whole governement or political class may have adopted a wrong ideology. We have plenty historical testimonies of it, say the Soviet block. AGW is dressed up like science but it's not science, it's just ideology, like Lysenkoism or marxist economy.
But I agree with you, in the UK, the debate is over, well, at least in the general media, because you have prominent and outspoken skeptics too, say Lord Monckton or Philip Stott.
Maybe this is out of guilt to have erased nearly all your forests.
Maybe because Maggie started it all back in the 80's. Who knows ?
I'm not so worry that should the wind blow the other way, the politicians will find how to spin the public opinion to their benefit. Hey Tony did it well with WMD to justify Iraq's invasion after all !
I think it to be an insult for many to compare their work with Soviet ideology - some may take that as an honour, though.
To compare it what happened in the former USSR, well, that's ... e.g. how Nazi propanda worked.
Walter Hinteler wrote:I think it to be an insult for many to compare their work with Soviet ideology - some may take that as an honour, though.
To compare it what happened in the former USSR, well, that's ... e.g. how Nazi propanda worked.
Then I believe you should think some more Walter. Once people believed that Fascism and Soviet Communism were opposites in the political spectrum. Though it is true they were bitter rivals for control and dominance, they were utterly alike in the conviction that the ruling elite alone posessed the right understanding of reality and could dispose of the humanity in their power as they wished in pursuit of their conception of it. The judgement of history is that they were merely different manifestations of the same ill-conceived hubris. The priesthood of the AGW cult is hardly different.
georgeob1 wrote: The judgement of history is that they were merely different manifestations of the same ill-conceived hubris. The priesthood of the AGW cult is hardly different.
So you compare people who think global warming is actual a danger to be of the same category as right wing Nazis and left wing communists?
Well, everyone can judge others as he wants.
miniTAX wrote:..AGW is dressed up like science but it's not science...
You saying the Stern report or the latest IPCC report is not science?
90% of the world's problems are to do with oil imo. We are burning what we have too quickly. We are fighting to control what resources are left. People are fighting us in turn (we call them terrorists) and long term fossil fuel burning is screwing up the earth's atmosphere.
And all because of our addiction - G W Bush's term - to oil.
I just read this again, take a look
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0506.drum.html
No, not so. Instead, I believe that people who advocate drastic corrective measures in pursuit of their assumptions about global warming that will themselves have significant adverse effects on the surfvival of large portions of humanity meet that definition. There is a significant difference. Reread the list of quotes that Minitax posted above - that will give you bthe flavor of it.
georgeob1 wrote: Reread the list of quotes that Minitax posted above - that will give you bthe flavor of it.
I've read the (original/first) source website - THAT gave me the flavour.
Walter Hinteler wrote:georgeob1 wrote: The judgement of history is that they were merely different manifestations of the same ill-conceived hubris. The priesthood of the AGW cult is hardly different.
So you compare people who think global warming is actual a danger to be of the same category as right wing Nazis and left wing communists?
Well, everyone can judge others as he wants.
Anthropogenic global warming is not an idea a cult or a religious belief. Its real. Tangible. We can measure it. We know what causes it. Its as real as the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs, though no doubt there were some dino-sceptics around at the time who said it was all hysteriacal nonsense... or alternatively if it was real it would probably miss.
georgeob1 wrote:No, not so. Instead, I believe that people who advocate drastic corrective measures in pursuit of their assumptions about global warming that will themselves have significant adverse effects on the surfvival of large portions of humanity meet that definition. There is a significant difference. Reread the list of quotes that Minitax posted above - that will give you bthe flavor of it.
I'm not sure which point you disagree with here George. People have been advocating population culls or limits to growth since the days of Malthus. Fortunately the earth has been able to support (in varying degrees of comfort) a hugely increased population. How? Through our exploitation of fossil fuels... in particular oil.
