Interesting to think over.
http://youtu.be/--geIGXBS0Q
Scary!
This was good too..: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrmAmsypm_Q&feature=related
@Jim (off topic) - checked your link; like your work. ;D
I just watched the whole thing including the question and answer part. I think his take on the environmental "green movement" as a spiritual movement or new religion is spot on! Al Gores use of a capital "N" in nature, the way the "g" in God is used is very telling in and of its self. As someone ones said, "Those who control the language control the culture".
I dont believe for one moment that the green movement gives a shit at all about human life. I do believe that if the the green movement were to gain the control over the global economic and environmental policies that they seek, the result would be catastrophic to human life around the world.
The only way the green movement will get what it wants is with a massive population reduction. That means you and me. Well, perhaps not you. But I'm poor, so it definitely means me.
*Nature*
@ Calico, thanks very much.
Quote from: TheBadger on March 20, 2012, 09:51:13 AM
The only way the green movement will get what it wants is with a massive population reduction. That means you and me. Well, perhaps not you. But I'm poor, so it definitely means me.
Got any evidence for this?
When I was child (many moons ago), anti-littering was actually enforced by policemen. You didn't see trashy highways or trash bags along the way where someone picked up someone else's trash, because fines were heavy and enforced. Pollution was attacked in companies. Laws were changed and enforced. Factories were even shut down.
Since then, after about 1979 or so, oil companies worldwide have controlled the economy and prevented replacement of oil as the mode of energy for multiple items including cars and factories. Due to this control, the electric car way back then was stifled. It has come to the forefront lately, but not by much. Still, we see conservative wealthy people vying for who is going to get theirs in the pile-on of who can create a real "Hunger Games" scenario.
The enemy isn't someone who cares about our environment - plain and simple.
Yes
"John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies"
"...Obama's science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a "planetary regime" that would use a "global police force" to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children..."
The book is Ecoscience a college text from 1977
After being questioned by reporters on his statement, John Holdern said, we should not take seriously something he said when he was younger. The ideas for population reduction, that Holder promoted are in use in China now and other places where the government has the power to make these policies law.
I do agree that we have problems with pollution and other issues, I do not believe that the green movement has any viable solutions, that will not cause greater human suffering. I like that they are out there keeping these issues on top, but I don't trust them to protect my life.
You have a single scenario in a 1000 page book from 35 years ago, and even then only under certain conditions? Are you serious?
Hannity falsely claims science adviser Holdren "advocated compulsory abortion" http://mediamatters.org/research/200909090028 (http://mediamatters.org/research/200909090028)
"Description misrepresented as endorsement": Bludgeoning Obama's science advisor with a 1977 textbook http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/description_misrepresented_as.php (http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/description_misrepresented_as.php)
QuoteThe sad thing here is that Carpenter's story, like the extremist blog post that appears to be her only source (which I'll discuss later), doesn't recognize the distinction between talking about something and endorsing something. That distinction is absolutely central to science: science is all about discussing, testing, and evaluating many possibilities - hypotheses - until the evidence endorses one hypothesis over the others.
Quote from: JimB on March 20, 2012, 11:47:02 AM
You have a single scenario in a 1000 page book from 35 years ago, and even then only under certain conditions? Are you serious?
Hannity falsely claims science adviser Holdren "advocated compulsory abortion" http://mediamatters.org/research/200909090028 (http://mediamatters.org/research/200909090028)
"Description misrepresented as endorsement": Bludgeoning Obama's science advisor with a 1977 textbook http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/description_misrepresented_as.php (http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/description_misrepresented_as.php)
QuoteThe sad thing here is that Carpenter's story, like the extremist blog post that appears to be her only source (which I'll discuss later), doesn't recognize the distinction between talking about something and endorsing something. That distinction is absolutely central to science: science is all about discussing, testing, and evaluating many possibilities - hypotheses - until the evidence endorses one hypothesis over the others.
I was pointing out that there are people in the green movement, who are also in my government, who think like tyrant dictators.
I did not know Hannity talked on this subject. I do think its funny if you think media matters is some how different than Hannity, they are two sides to the same crazy coin.
My main point was that, in the interest of environmentalism via population control, horrible crimes are being committed today in china and other places. And, that there are people even in western governments who would support these crimes. Even if they are obscure people who write obscure books.
Would you vote for a man, who even if it was 30 years ago, said, "All jews should be killed, perhaps."? Or, " Maybe we should kill people?.. Just asking?" Whats the difference? What crazy fucked up world do you live in, where its OK for leaders to consider in a scientific method, the viability of genocide as a solution to any problem?
Just so you know, I don't trust oil companies either. I don't trust anyone to have power over me or my life. But the subject of this thread was very specific, so thats what I was commenting on.
Quote from: TheBadger on March 20, 2012, 12:01:11 PM
I was pointing out that there are people in the green movement, who are also in my government, who think like tyrant dictators.
Please explain how Holdren is the leader of the environmental movement.
QuoteMy main point was that, in the interest of environmentalism via population control, horrible crimes are being committed today in china and other places.
Or maybe China just has a serious overpopulation problem? Not exactly a big secret. But I see no evidence for China's Central Committee jumping up after reading Holdren's book in the Seventies and shouting "Eureka!"
QuoteWould you vote for a man, who even if it was 30 years ago, said, "All jews should be killed, perhaps."?
No. Quite the opposite. But that has nothing to do with environmentalism or Holdren.
Quote" Maybe we should kill people?.. Just asking?" Whats the difference? What crazy fucked up world do you live in, where its OK for leaders to consider in a scientific method, the viability of genocide as a solution to any problem?
It's called an hypothetical situation, which most people over the age of twelve understand to be purely hypothetical. A bit like an hypothetical nuclear war, but in your world it would appear that those hypothetically discussing the subject are actually after the launch codes and all for pressing the button.
QuoteQuote from: TheBadger on Today at 04:01:11 PM
I was pointing out that there are people in the green movement, who are also in my government, who think like tyrant dictators.
Please explain how Holdren is the leader of the environmental movement.
Holdren advises the President of the United Sates on matters of science and technology, including science and technology as it relates to environmental issues, a central concern of the obama administration. He has the presidents ear and he is an environmentalist. Because of his elite roll in the government he is an elite leader of the green movement. It is not the activists in the green movement that worry me, it is the pollicy makers.
QuoteMy main point was that, in the interest of environmentalism via population control, horrible crimes are being committed today in china and other places.
Or maybe China just has a serious overpopulation problem? Not exactly a big secret. But I see no evidence for China's Central Committee jumping up after reading Holdren's book in the Seventies and shouting "Eureka!"
I did not mean to suggest a correlation, only a similarity. "maybe China just has a serious overpopulation problem?", Yeah, and maybe we should just kill people to solve the problem. Thats my point.
QuoteIt's called an hypothetical situation, which most people over the age of twelve understand to be purely hypothetical. A bit like an hypothetical nuclear war, but in your world it would appear that those hypothetically discussing the subject are actually after the launch codes and all for pressing the button.
If when my Son comes home at 12, and proposes a hypothetical situation, where for some reason he needs to kill people as a solution to a problem, I will seek the help of psychiatrist. Nucular war is not hypothetical, it is a real danger. Our preparations for nuclear conflict are not hypothetical, they are real and stand ready. God forbid.
I restate: I do not want people making policy who think like the people you are defending, who imagine as an intellectual exercise, how murder and tyranny may solve a problem. Holdren only recanted after being pressed too, after the story broke possibly by Hannity or some one else on the right. I do not trust the right any more than the left by the way.
QuoteI restate: I do not want people making policy who think like the people you are defending, who imagine as an intellectual exercise, how murder and tyranny may solve a problem.
That's the Pentagon sacked, then. They regularly look at all hypothetical scenarios and plan for them, just in case. You can sack the CDC while you're at it, too.
Quote from: JimB on March 20, 2012, 06:14:06 PM
QuoteI restate: I do not want people making policy who think like the people you are defending, who imagine as an intellectual exercise, how murder and tyranny may solve a problem.
That's the Pentagon sacked, then. They regularly look at all hypothetical scenarios and plan for them, just in case. You can sack the CDC while you're at it, too.
I can not argue against your assertion that there are people in those departments who's thinking is extreme and horrific. You are almost certainly right.
However, those people in the departments you mention do not have neo-pegan religions forming around them the way the green movement does. Also, those department and industries were not the point of this thread.
I am sorry that my sharing my feelings on this subject brought you to anger. I really don't understand why you would be upset by what I said. I have no power over you, or any power over the things you believe in. Yet the movements you seem to support and their public faces actively seek the power necessary to directly effect my life and my liberty, even my very ability to work and prosper.
QuoteHowever, those people in the departments you mention do not have neo-pegan religions forming around them the way the green movement does.
The environmental movement is a neo-pagan religion? Can you even define the "environmental movement"? This is reminiscent of the Cornwall Alliance's declaration that the "environmental movement" is the literal Biblical antichrist (Green Dragon), otherwise known as batshittery amongst polite circles.
QuoteAlso, those department and industries were not the point of this thread.
Like China, genocide, Al Gore? Nature with a capital 'N', by the way, is a catch all term for the physical and natural universe, hence the most highly respected scientific journal in the world is called (you guessed it) Nature.
"The nature of nature" doesn't exactly read right.
QuoteI am sorry that my sharing my feelings on this subject brought you to anger.
Straw man fallacy. I might have been rubbing my eyes in disbelief at your attack on the "environmental movement", though.
QuoteYet the movements you seem to support and their public faces actively seek the power necessary to directly effect my life and my liberty, even my very ability to work and prosper.
Does Alex Epstein point out that the coal industry costs the US taxpayers up to just under half a trillion dollars in external costs each year (cleanup, healthcare, etc)? Thought not. How does uncritically supporting a shill for a US Chamber of Commerce astroturfing front group, who cleverly appeals to a section of the population's confirmation biases and propagandises for industries that wilfully pollute their neighbors' properties and health without permission while they rent-seek through socialising their external costs, tie in with your (seemingly) libertarian values?
QuoteThe environmental movement is a neo-pagan religion? Can you even define the "environmental movement"? This is reminiscent of the Cornwall Alliance's declaration that the "environmental movement" is the literal Biblical antichrist (Green Dragon), otherwise known as batshittery amongst polite circles.
Where did I say that, I think, the environmental movement is a neo-pagan religion? No place. Its funny you accusing me of argumentative fallacy, and then twisting my words or just flat out putting words in my mouth which you have done several times in this thread already.
But the environmental movement does in fact include a large subset of so called earth worshipers or, neo-pagans. Who are affecting the culture of the Earth/Environmental movement. This subject was broached in the videos, both the lecture video and the debate video. Did you even watch?
I dont know the cornwall alliance or their views on anything. But I'm sure you are mentioning some crazy people you found on the internet, in order to associate my views with theirs.
QuoteQuote
Also, those department and industries were not the point of this thread.
Like China, genocide, Al Gore? Nature with a capital 'N', by the way, is a catch all term for the physical and natural universe, hence the most highly respected scientific journal in the world is called (you guessed it) Nature.
"The nature of nature" doesn't exactly read right.
Al Gore was mentioned in the video multiple times. I added china as an example of where Holdern's ideas are policy.
The journal "Nature" should be capitalized. Nature is also capitalized when it is being referred to as a person. But there is no such person as Mother Nature, by any name. The Earth its self, is not alive. When people refer to the Earth as a person, this is neo-paganry. This is how Al Gore has repeatedly used the word nature in his talks and writing. I do not know if he believes in "Nature" or if he is simply pandering to the most devoted of his supporters.
QuoteQuote
I am sorry that my sharing my feelings on this subject brought you to anger.
Straw man fallacy. I might have been rubbing my eyes in disbelief at your attack on the "environmental movement", though.
Straw man, really? I was being sincere.
QuoteQuote
Yet the movements you seem to support and their public faces actively seek the power necessary to directly effect my life and my liberty, even my very ability to work and prosper.
Does Alex Epstein point out that the coal industry costs the US taxpayers up to just under half a trillion dollars in external costs each year (cleanup, healthcare, etc)? Thought not. How does uncritically supporting a shill for a US Chamber of Commerce astroturfing front group, who cleverly appeals to a section of the population's confirmation biases and propagandises for industries that wilfully pollute their neighbors' properties and health without permission while they rent-seek through socialising their external costs, tie in with your (seemingly) libertarian values?
He does in fact respond to the external cost argument of his opponent in the debate, and the question of external costs relating to what the environmental movement wants.
The rest of what your saying here is your personal view, which you are entitled to, Im not in agreement or opposition. I have already said in this thread that I do not trust the energy companies anymore than I trust the environmental movement, which is to say, not at all. I have already said I don't trust anyone to have power over my life.
I have not made one argument in favor of the oil companies as entities, I have not praised them in any way. It is fallacious of you to try and make it sound as though, because Im against most of the environmental movement, that therefore I am for big energy. Or that I am against a heathy eco-system. I am not. Why should I make arguments on your behalf? Why do we only ever get to choose between two horrible things?
Yes I am a libertarian. And like Ron Paul, I believe we are all completely screwed. But that does not mean that I'm going to jump on the environmental bandwagon and help them make things even worse.
Quote from: TheBadger on March 21, 2012, 10:39:14 AM
Where did I say that, I think, the environmental movement is a neo-pagan religion? No place.
I must have imagined the specific words "neo-pagan" in your pre-edited comment. Abject apologies.
Quote from: JimB on April 03, 2012, 06:23:22 PM
Quote from: TheBadger on March 21, 2012, 10:39:14 AM
Where did I say that, I think, the environmental movement is a neo-pagan religion? No place.
I must have imagined the specific words "neo-pagan" in your pre-edited comment. Abject apologies.
Hey JimB,
I said that the departments you mentioned (pentagon and so on) do not have neo-pagan religions forming around them the way the environmental movement does.
The environmental movement does in fact have a serious issue in that regard. And I find the effort of environmental groups, including groups within the U.N to make plant and animal live equal to that of a human life, deeply disturbing. Horrific.
The earth is not alive. There is no mother of nature... I know you are not arguing this, but those people who do, are a large part of the earth movement. Making the earth movement and the environmental movement indistinguishable in terms of activism and probably, in the long run, with policy too.
I don't know what you mean by pre-edited. I fire from the hip. I think this is why I get into so many arguments.
When I do edit a post, its only for spelling and grammar. I openly admit I'm a terrible typer.
Oh, a Ron Paul guy. Neat. END THE FED! :)
QuoteAnd I find the effort of environmental groups, including groups within the U.N to make plant and animal live equal to that of a human life, deeply disturbing. Horrific.
Without the environment we're toast, and that includes animal and plant species. We cannot survive on the Moon without an artificial environment that would most likely include plants, for instance and to illustrate how no human is an island.
QuoteThe earth is not alive. There is no mother of nature...
I suspect you're repeating something you heard at the pub. If you mean Gaia, it's a valid scientific hypothesis discussed in the scientific literature, which does not attribute 'sentient life' to the ball of rock we stand on. Look up James Lovelock.
QuoteMaking the earth movement and the environmental movement indistinguishable in terms of activism and probably, in the long run, with policy too.
They pay taxes as well. I believe they're as entitled to push for policies every bit as much as CFACT are.
Yes I understand the value of non human life on earth, but a single animal is not equal to a single human. And I should not have to list examples proving there are a lot of people who believe in equality between all life forms. Its pretty out in the open.
If Gaia is a valid scientific hypothesis, so is Star Wars
Everyone pays taxes, even crazy people.
Quote from: TheBadger on April 04, 2012, 01:40:01 PM
Yes I understand the value of non human life on earth, but a single animal is not equal to a single human. And I should not have to list examples proving there are a lot of people who believe in equality between all life forms. Its pretty out in the open.
I think you're confusing the animal liberationists with environmentalists.
Quote from: TheBadger on April 04, 2012, 01:40:01 PM
If Gaia is a valid scientific hypothesis, so is Star Wars
Google Scholar will tell you otherwise:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=gaia+theory&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
QuoteI think you're confusing the animal liberationists with environmentalists.
Nope. My point was and is, that those groups are all tangled up with each other in the environmental movement as a coalition. Thats nothing new politically. But the amount of power through policy their after is staggering. And I still maintain that almost none of their ideas will fix anything. But I do agree that we are in serious trouble, and that we can't trust big energy either. The Political sides are never going to agree and neither will the people.
SO what do we do?
I don't want to argue about Gaia anymore, I realize that someone could read this and be offended because thats their belief system. My main point is that I don't want neo-pegan religion affecting environmental law, domestic or international policy, that I have to live under.
Quote from: calico on March 20, 2012, 11:22:35 AM
The enemy isn't someone who cares about our environment - plain and simple.
Caring about the environment is different than establishing a new stock market to trade in shares of pollution credits. If Gore had really wanted to improve the condition of the natural envfironment, there are thousands of approaches that would have done good. Creating a vehicle to make money for himself and his friends isn't one of them, and arguably would have had the effect of causing more harm.
Al Gore did not invent global warming. ::)
Quote from: JimB on April 10, 2012, 01:30:05 PM
Al Gore did not invent global warming. ::)
Correct. He just found a way to profit from it at my expense. 10,000 years ago the desk I am sitting at was under a mile of ice. In 1677 the Thames froze solid during the Little Ice Age. In the early 1970's we were threatened by Gore's spiritual predecessors that today we would be entering a new Ice Age, and now that Global Warming is not panning out, Gore's coreligionists have begun calling their threat "Climate Change." Soon we will hear of the dangerous cooling unless we send money immediately, and that the mile thick glacier will once again cover my home.
Without a changing climate life on Earth would die.
Here's the Thames in 1677
[attachimg=1]
Ah, a painting of the Thames when it was wider and flowed much more slowly, ergo....
The Thames has frozen over roughly 14 times in over 1000 years. Not such a big deal.
The highest percentage of climate scientists who you will find disagreeing with man significantly contributing to global warming is five percent. And before you cite the 31,000 scientists of the Oregon Petition, signatories of that little gem are merely science graduates, include Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls (twice), the doctors from M*A*S*H, and lots of people who were dead at the time they supposedly signed it.
QuoteIn the early 1970's we were threatened by Gore's spiritual predecessors that today we would be entering a new Ice Age
Untrue. Most scientific papers in the 1970s were predicting warming, and by 1980 any predictions of ice ages had stopped.
Quote from: gregsandor on April 10, 2012, 01:54:28 PM
Without a changing climate life on Earth would die.
Without a Holocene climate we'd still be hunter-gatherers and scavengers: no civilisation.
Quote from: JimB on April 11, 2012, 01:48:15 AM
Ah, a painting of the Thames when it was wider and flowed much more slowly, ergo....
The Thames has frozen over roughly 14 times in over 1000 years. Not such a big deal.
So you're saying that over a period of a thousand years the Thames widened and narrowed in a cycle, permitting it to freeze some years and flow in others? It wasn't the temperature dropping? The crop losses over wide regions weren't due to cold, but rather ... what? And by your standard, since it is "Not such a big deal," a few years of warming or cooling in modern times doesn't justify an enormous regulatory and financial market scam.
[attachimg=1]
The language and tactics are the same, it is just a different flip of the coin as to which threat they use to rationalize their agenda.
[attachimg=2]
Greg, you can throw as many big pictures into the thread as you like. Two problems:
1: Time magazine is not, and never was, a scientific journal.
2: Look at the year on the Science paper (1975).
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG)
The science has moved on since the 1970s. The theory of anthropogenic global warming is 19th Century stuff, and older than relativity and quantum mechanics. Feedbacks are the problem area, and ice feedback is kicking in at a faster rate than model predictions.
(http://www.realclimate.org/images/seaice11.jpg)