How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:40 pm

Sounder » Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:23 pm wrote:Your words are wasting space in your last post addressed to me Dr. Evil. Show some guts and answer to a more direct assertion good doctor.

Lets see, How much does big money spend, well reflected by major media content and foundation and govt. money support, on climate alarmism versus say; effects of pesticide runoff, risks of nuclear power and decommissioning costs, effects of electromagnetic fields on human physiology, or risks created by depleted uranium, radiation runoff in to the ocean, or GMO pesticide use as a desiccant resulting in messed up guts for most people, or industrial chemical use and regulation etc. etc. and on and on.

The pollution lobby achieves its objectives by diverting general attention away from the actual nasty shit that gets done, and toward the goat.

If true, Climate Alarmists (as well as the reactionary class among the deniers) are the ones participating in obscuring the existence and mode of functioning of the pollution lobby.


Surely you have some deflection or redirect slander ready at hand.


Yeah, and how much is spent on car safety, gun regulation advocacy, meteor tracking and all kinds of other things that have fuck all to do with climate change? I didn't respond earlier because your post is stupid. "Look at this other bad thing! Look over here!"

If you want to talk about electromagnetic radiation or pesticides there are already threads for that.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4155
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby FourthBase » Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:46 pm

Harvey » 23 Dec 2019 19:39 wrote:FB, it isn't remotely clear who or what you're referring to above. Any chance you could clarify?


I could clarify...if I knew which post you were referring to.

If you mean whose face I wanted to punch:

FourthBase » 22 Dec 2019 09:58 wrote:https://www.corbettreport.com/what-did-exxonknew-and-when-did-they-knew-it-question-for-corbett-048/

I'm obviously open to all sorts of paranoid doubt about climate change activism. But Corbett's smug take that #ExxonKnew is just a nothingburger and a false flag seems pretty fucking vapid. Yeah, it might be a win-win for Exxon, they might be divesting from oil and ready to profit from a monopoly on new energy. But that would still be the case if climate change were happening exactly as the activists say. Exxon would be doing the exact same shit. What they would NOT have done, if anthropogenic climate change were a false narrative, is figure it all out for themselves 40 years ago. Honestly, it's one of the stupidest false flag theories I've ever heard. And despite how suspicious I am of climate change being used by pinkos to fulfill their totalitarian dreams, even I wanted to reach through my phone and punch Corbett in the fucking face. Please tell me you have better evidence than that asshole's empty speculation.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Harvey » Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:23 pm

Fair enough. I fail to understand why Corbett (despite his good work) gets a free pass to talk shit on warming.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby FourthBase » Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:43 pm

Sounder » 23 Dec 2019 19:12 wrote:Harvey wrote...
I'm looking forward to the thread on Great Barrier Reef Coral Crisis Actors. So many trees are playing along too. And the Koala bear is functionally extinct, those fuzzy little bastards deserve an Oscar.


Yes, misapplied sarcasm and puffery.

It's ironic that upthread a Great Barrier Reef expert was fired for suggesting that something other than temp. change was killing the reef. He was awarded damages of 800,000.00 and the university did nothing to advance understand of the reef by firing the fellow. But they did signal well to the other 'experts' what is expected of them. And good on you in choosing the Koala as your emotive trigger, given that polar bear populations are thriving and yet another prof. was recently fired from Alaska uni for saying so.

Yeah free speech, fuck the deniers and punch them in the face.


Peter Ridd could be a shill or just deluded. But the reaction to him reminds me of situations we here would invariably be sympathetic to. For instance, how many JFK conspiracy theorists get published by peer-reviewed history journals? Not too many. Why, because their research is sloppy and unprofessional and selective? In many cases, sure. But what would we suspect: Because the cliques in charge of the journals are committed to a narrative and cockblock the dissidents. If such a JFK conspiracy theorist were fired from his academic job for personally challenging the integrity of his colleagues and giving public interviews in disreputable venues, how would we feel? If that fired academic were discredited because he's aligned with special interests, like, say, he belongs to a socialist organization with a grudge against the military industrial complex, would you write him off? Nope. Even if he were a fucking KGB agent, he still might be telling the truth. So why is Ridd different?
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:38 pm

Dr. Evil wrote...
If you want to talk about electromagnetic radiation or pesticides there are already threads for that.


Your sophistry is so shallow it hardly qualifies even for that. I was not referring to what I want to talk about, I was referring to what MSM, foundations and the govt. talk about and don't talk about so that they may better avoid true threats to society and thereby support the pollution lobby.

Fuck man Dr. Evil, up your damn game.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Mon Dec 23, 2019 10:48 pm

Peter Ridd could be a shill or just deluded.


He is or was an academic who studies the reef and made the assertion that temp. variation has not killed the reef before so it was probably not doing it now. He did not even challenge CC.

He got fired to maintain the 97% bit.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:28 am

Yeah free speech, fuck the deniers and punch them in the face.


May this comment receive nothing but the utter contempt it deserves.



More puffery, designed to keep yourself and others away from having a fair consideration of my opinions.

I like to think that my use of sarcasm is clear enough that it has no need to be identified as such.
The sarcasm is directed at those bastions of free speech, the higher ed system and its habit of effectively culling any educators that are not hip to the current manufactured consensus.


FourthBase, sorry for the confusion, my reference was toward Dr.Evil who continues to make threats of violence toward 'deniers'. For which he is cheered on rather that held in the contempt he deserves for his fantasies of violence. Your 'threat' was a turn of phrase expressing distaste for the smug arrogant demeanor of Corbett. That seems fair to me. It was not about wanting to punch him (by pulling him through the screen) because of beliefs, but rather for his presentation.

I'm fine with your attitude FB, you're the only one here trying to consider arguments from both sides.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:01 am

To Norton Ash,
It does seem like this is a progression rather than a cycle. I just do not go for ready made answers that ignore the many other factors producing our current situation. I think Blake said something about single vision.

We may want to (for instance) consider that the generalized psychical garbage we all carry around contributes to the temporal environment in ways not yet understood.



Jack wrote...
Since it's not invisible to you, why don't you map it out? Because you can't, except by generalization and inference,


Ohhh, asked and answered, so lawyerly of you. Here is a map, and yes of course your patron saint Soros is on it. O dear, I am so vague, keep repeating it.

that you read somewhere that Soros funded something, and then decide that it's all Soros or equivalent, and then decide that Soros=Koch=Too Many Mexicans, done.


Yes, I read somewhere, and now you can too.


I'm not crazy about James presentation either, but I do like the information he presents.

From an upthread link to Corbett


......In February 2019 following a speech to the EU Commission in Brussels by Greta Thunberg, then-EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, after gallantly kissing Greta’s hand, appeared to be moved to real action. He told Greta and the press that the EU should spend hundreds of billions of euros combating climate change during the next 10 years. Juncker proposed that between 2021 to 2027, “every fourth euro spent within the EU budget go toward action to mitigate climate change.” What the sly Juncker did not say was that the decision had nothing to do with the young Swedish activist’s plea. It had been made in conjunction with the World Bank a full year before in September 26, 2018 at the One Planet Summit, along with the World Bank, Bloomberg Foundations, the World Economic Forum and others. Juncker had cleverly used the media attention given the young Swede to promote his climate agenda.

On October 17, 2018, days following the EU agreement at the One Planet Summit, Juncker’s EU signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Breakthrough Energy-Europe in which member corporations of Breakthrough Energy-Europe will have preferential access to any funding.

The members of Breakthrough Energy include Virgin Air’s Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Alibaba’s Jack Ma, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, HRH Prince Al-waleed bin Talal, Bridgewater Associates’ Ray Dalio; Julian Robertson of hedge fund giant, Tiger Management; David Rubenstein, founder Carlyle Group; George Soros, Chairman Soros Fund Management LLC; Masayoshi Son, founder Softbank, Japan.

Make no mistake. When the most influential multinational corporations, the world’s largest institutional investors including BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, the UN, the World Bank, the Bank of England and other central banks of the BIS line up behind the financing of a so-called green Agenda, call it Green New Deal or what, it is time to look behind the surface of public climate activist campaigns to the actual agenda. The picture that emerges is the attempted financial reorganization of the world economy using climate, something the sun and its energy have orders of magnitude more to do with than mankind ever could—to try to convince us ordinary folk to make untold sacrifice to “save our planet.”

Back in 2010 the head of Working Group 3 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer, “…one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” Since then the economic policy strategy has become far more developed.


And thanks Jack for the 'protecting the polluter lobby' boomerang.

You also need to really up your game or you will find yourself kicked out of Climate Alarmist gloating league.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Harvey » Tue Dec 24, 2019 12:39 pm

Sounder » Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:28 pm wrote:
Yeah free speech, fuck the deniers and punch them in the face.


May this comment receive nothing but the utter contempt it deserves.



More puffery, designed to keep yourself and others away from having a fair consideration of my opinions.

I like to think that my use of sarcasm is clear enough that it has no need to be identified as such.
The sarcasm is directed at those bastions of free speech, the higher ed system and its habit of effectively culling any educators that are not hip to the current manufactured consensus.


FourthBase, sorry for the confusion, my reference was toward Dr.Evil who continues to make threats of violence toward 'deniers'. For which he is cheered on rather that held in the contempt he deserves for his fantasies of violence. Your 'threat' was a turn of phrase expressing distaste for the smug arrogant demeanor of Corbett. That seems fair to me. It was not about wanting to punch him (by pulling him through the screen) because of beliefs, but rather for his presentation.

I'm fine with your attitude FB, you're the only one here trying to consider arguments from both sides.


Sorry about that, I assumed that particular comment was gratuitously aimed at me, since you addressed the post to me. Have fun with your straw men.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby FourthBase » Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:15 pm

I'm pretty sure no one here has ever trusted the World Bank. Why now? Because it conforms in this case to a leftist narrative? People are okay with Branson, Gates, Ma, Zuckerberg, the Crown Prince, Dalio, Carlyle, and various other slimeball entities you wouldn't trust in a million years? Because if you don't trust them, then you might have to also not trust Soros? Do you read that quote about climate policy really being about redistribution and think, "Good!"? Evil said the trustworthy people are the scientists, not this network of billionaire douchebags. But surely all that power could control the scientists, no? Is there any evidence that the scientists are phony or deluded? Sure, some. There may be a 10% chance that alarmists are right, but certain things stick in my craw as reasonable doubts. Like, if there've been times on earth when there was 100 times more CO2 than now but no warming, how is that possible per the alarmist perspective? Exactly how small is our contribution of CO2 in the big picture, and can so little a contribution really set off a chain reaction like the kind alarmists expect? In the big list of things a denier like Anthony Watts sees as evidence of a hoax, I only understand about half of them, but half of the half that remains is pretty damned persuasive. I sense an objective dispute about the facts, and the left claims it's not really an objective dispute because the deniers have ulterior motives, which they may very well have, but so do the alarmists. The deniers are backed by billionaires and creepy multinational institutions, but so are the alarmists.

Anyone, I'm still awaiting a logical, plausible explanation of why Exxon would be behind ExxonKnew. Still makes no sense to me.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:23 pm

Sounder » Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:38 am wrote:Dr. Evil wrote...
If you want to talk about electromagnetic radiation or pesticides there are already threads for that.


Your sophistry is so shallow it hardly qualifies even for that. I was not referring to what I want to talk about, I was referring to what MSM, foundations and the govt. talk about and don't talk about so that they may better avoid true threats to society and thereby support the pollution lobby.

Fuck man Dr. Evil, up your damn game.


As I said, I think that's a stupid argument. Global warming is talked about a lot because we're starting to see the effects of it, and a lot of people are extremely worried about it. The media and friends also talk about the other issues you mentioned, just not as much. That's not support for the pollution lobby, but prioritizing what attracts eyeballs and what people see as the more important issue.

Just because you think something else is more important doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.

I'm still waiting on you to supply some sources for your claim that Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome cooked up the whole global warming scam. And what's your opinion on Deagle.com, now that you've presumably looked at their explanation for how they arrived at their population reduction numbers?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4155
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Wed Dec 25, 2019 5:52 pm

Sounder » Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:28 pm wrote:
Yeah free speech, fuck the deniers and punch them in the face.


May this comment receive nothing but the utter contempt it deserves.



More puffery, designed to keep yourself and others away from having a fair consideration of my opinions.

I like to think that my use of sarcasm is clear enough that it has no need to be identified as such.
The sarcasm is directed at those bastions of free speech, the higher ed system and its habit of effectively culling any educators that are not hip to the current manufactured consensus.


FourthBase, sorry for the confusion, my reference was toward Dr.Evil who continues to make threats of violence toward 'deniers'. For which he is cheered on rather that held in the contempt he deserves for his fantasies of violence. Your 'threat' was a turn of phrase expressing distaste for the smug arrogant demeanor of Corbett. That seems fair to me. It was not about wanting to punch him (by pulling him through the screen) because of beliefs, but rather for his presentation.

I'm fine with your attitude FB, you're the only one here trying to consider arguments from both sides.


You still don't understand what the word hyperbole means I see. If you're watching the news and Trump says one of his usual dumb things and someone rolls their eyes and says "man, why can't someone just put a bullet in that guy", do you then immediately assume that they literally want someone to murder him?

Ironically, I distinctly remember fourthbase fantasizing about murdering Ray Kurzweil (no offense meant FB, I know you're not a fan, but I still maintain the worst thing you can possibly do to him is let him die of old age :) ).
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4155
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby FourthBase » Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:56 pm

DrEvil » 25 Dec 2019 16:52 wrote:
Sounder » Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:28 pm wrote:
Yeah free speech, fuck the deniers and punch them in the face.


May this comment receive nothing but the utter contempt it deserves.



More puffery, designed to keep yourself and others away from having a fair consideration of my opinions.

I like to think that my use of sarcasm is clear enough that it has no need to be identified as such.
The sarcasm is directed at those bastions of free speech, the higher ed system and its habit of effectively culling any educators that are not hip to the current manufactured consensus.


FourthBase, sorry for the confusion, my reference was toward Dr.Evil who continues to make threats of violence toward 'deniers'. For which he is cheered on rather that held in the contempt he deserves for his fantasies of violence. Your 'threat' was a turn of phrase expressing distaste for the smug arrogant demeanor of Corbett. That seems fair to me. It was not about wanting to punch him (by pulling him through the screen) because of beliefs, but rather for his presentation.

I'm fine with your attitude FB, you're the only one here trying to consider arguments from both sides.


You still don't understand what the word hyperbole means I see. If you're watching the news and Trump says one of his usual dumb things and someone rolls their eyes and says "man, why can't someone just put a bullet in that guy", do you then immediately assume that they literally want someone to murder him?

Ironically, I distinctly remember fourthbase fantasizing about murdering Ray Kurzweil (no offense meant FB, I know you're not a fan, but I still maintain the worst thing you can possibly do to him is let him die of old age :) ).


No offense taken. You're absolutely right, too, that is the worst thing. Good call.

I'm still waiting on you to supply some sources for your claim that Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome cooked up the whole global warming scam.


I am also interested in those sources.

You can easily imagine the motives, though, yeah?
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sounder » Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:44 pm

Dr.Evil wrote....
I'm still waiting on you to supply some sources for your claim that Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome cooked up the whole global warming scam.


More at link.

https://stovouno.org/2019/02/23/globali ... the-world/

The Globalism of Climate: How Faux Environmental Concern Hides Desire to Rule the World
Barbara McKenzie Uncategorized February 23, 2019

[Edit: it was in 1988, not 1986, that Hansen and Wirth sabotaged the air conditioning in a US Senate committee room in order to make their global warming point]

The primary function of ‘global warming’ alarmism, aka as the ‘climate crisis,’ is to facilitate a one-world government, administered by the United Nations bureaucracy.

Regardless of the science involved (or lack of it), there are a number of indisputable facts about the background to anthropogenic global warming alarmism:

The long-standing plan for global government by an elite;
The one-to-one equivalence between the globalists and the creators of climate alarmism, represented above all by David Rockefeller and his protégé Maurice Strong;
The manifest intention of UN reports on ‘climate’ and the environment to give more power to the UN bureaucracy and to corporate-owned non-government organisations (NGOs).

David Rockefeller

It was David Rockefeller who, ably assisted by Maurice Strong, created and drove the wildly successful ‘Global Warming’ strategy.

David Rockefeller (1915-2017) was the youngest of John D. Rockefeller Jr.’s six children, and a grandson of John D. Rockefeller. He was well known as chairman and chief executive of Chase Manhattan Corporation and in the words of the obituary published by Rockefeller University, ‘one of the greatest philanthropists of our time’. He is viewed in a somewhat different light by his critics, e.g. David Rockefeller: An Immoral Life of Evil and Treason.

David Rockefeller was heir to the Rockefeller ambition to create global governance by an elite. This almost certainly goes back to the confidential meeting between Alphonse de Rothschild and either John Rockefeller or his agents in 1892, and before that to Cecil Rhodes’ founding of a secret society, the Round Table, of which Nathaniel Rothschild was a member. The purpose of the society was to ‘bring the whole of the civilised world’ under one rulership. To that end, i.e. of creating one-world government, David’s father John D. Rockefeller, Jr, together with Rothschild agents, engineered the creation of first the League of Nations and then, after that project failed due to United States scepticism, of the United Nations. See How Cecil Rhodes Fathered the Modern Globalist Movement: a Timeline.

David Rockefeller in his turn acted to strengthen, expand and control through generous funding the role of the United Nations.

David Rockefeller was the common denominator amongst the groups descended from Rhodes original secret society, the groups of the Round Table, whose function is to plan and achieve global governance by an elite, as intended by Cecil Rhodes.

1921 His father John D. Rockefeller, Jr, founded the Council on Foreign Relations and David Rockefeller was chairman of CFR from 1970 until 1985. At the same time,
1921 John D. Rockefeller, Jr founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs, aka Chatham House. Chatham House has continued to receive funding from the Rockefeller Foundation from inception, and is still listed by the Foundation as a grantee today.
1954 David Rockefeller was a founding member of Bilderberg, whose primary function is to oversee the ‘European project’. He served on the advisory board and was a regular attendee at its meetings, even at the age of 98.
1968 He founded the Club of Rome, the ‘apex of the New World Order’.
1973 He founded the Trilateral Commission to bring together high ranking people politicians and business people from the US, Western Europe and Japan to plan one-world government.

The Club of Rome (CoR)

The Club of Rome is a global think tank on behalf of the elite environmental movement. It describes itself as ‘an organisation of individuals who share a common concern for the future of humanity and strive to make a difference’.

The main purpose of the Club of Rome is to formulate crisis through which the world can be united under a world government.’ Compleat Patriot.

From inception, it is apparent that the Club of Rome was seeking a strategy to provide a catalyst for radical change in society, to create Hegelian dialect, or order out of chaos.

The Club of Rome specialises in ‘crisis creation’ using the Hegelian Dialectic to accomplish their goals (Jeremiah Project, video)

The CoR first promoted the population scare of the 1970’s, then, when the promised famine failed to eventuate, environmentalism, and then finally in 1977, anthropogenic global warming alarmism, which has succeeded admirably, if only because of the huge sums of money thrown at it.
The Club of Rome was founded by David Rockefeller.

1965, June 12-19, the Conference on Conditions of World Order is held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Villa Serbelloni in Bellagio, Italy, with papers given by Henry A. Kissinger and others. Three years later,

1968, April The Club of Rome is founded in Bellagio by ‘a think-tank of financiers, scientists, economists, politicians, heads of state, and industrialists from ten different countries’. Members of the Club of Rome have included Ted Turner, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bill Gates and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (a long list here).
Inventing a Common Adversary

The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order (Mikhail Gorbachev, member of Club of Rome, Monetary and Economic Review, 1996, 5).

The Club of Rome has produced a large number of reports proposing population reduction and global government on the basis of environmental crisis.

1972 The Limits to Growth warns of overpopulation and the need for sustainable development.

The Club of Rome’s Depopulation Agenda

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind, 1976.
‘World population needs to be decreased by 50%’ Henry Kissinger, member of CoR.
“the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.” Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of CoR.
‘A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” Ted Turner, founder of CNN, major UN donor, member of CoR.
In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it. Jacques Cousteau, French naval officer and explorer, member of the CoR.
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.’ Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, according to Green Agenda a member of CoR, father of four. (The Green Agenda)

In short:

Scratch a CoR member and there is a global depopulation misanthrope inside (Bill Elder, here in comments)

The current fad of referring to looming extinction, as in the corporate-owned protest group Extinction Rebellion, has therefore a double entendre – the intended extinction is, of course, that of most of the human race.

Environmentalism is used to justify moving people from rural areas into the city, and increased control over people’s lives and property by local and central government. Above all environmentalism, and especially the global warming scare, are being used by the Club of Rome and its members to create acceptance for increasing powers for the corporate-owned United Nations bureaucracy and the corporate-owned NGOs affiliated to the United Nations.

The real purpose of the establishment environmental movement is to build the structures (political, economic, ideological etc) of the ultimate monopoly: a corporate-communist world government. David Richards

1974 Club of Rome published Mankind at the Turning Point: ‘This report develops further the concept on the World Problematique ‘. Mankind is faced by a multitude of crises: ‘the population crisis, the environmental crisis, the world food crisis, the energy crisis, the raw material crisis, amongst others’ […]

“The solution of these crises can be developed only in a global context with full and explicit recognition of the emerging world system and on a long-term basis. This would necessitate, among other changes, a new world economic order and a global resources allocation system…”

Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, 1968, and CoR member, exemplifies the alarmist tactics of the Club of Rome, warning of mass extinction from famine, global cooling, global warming, or pollution:

“In the 1970s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death…”– Paul Ehrlich, the Population Bomb, 1968
“The Population of the U.S. will shrink from 250 million to about 22.5 million before 1999 because of famine and global warming.” – Paul Ehrlich, 1968
“I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” – Paul Ehrlich, 1969
“Smog disasters in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles” – Paul Ehrlich, 1969
“Falling temperatures will cause the ice caps to sink into the ocean, producing a global tidal wave that could wipe out a substantial portion of mankind, and the sea level could rise 60 to 100 feet.” – Paul Ehrlich, 1970

A year after the founding of the Club of Rome:

1969 The Rockefeller Foundation (RF) approved ‘its first full-fledged environmental effort‘, the Quality of the Environment (QE) program. (The program supported for some years the work of the CRU at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, which in 2009 achieved notoriety as the centre of the ‘climategate’ scandal.)
Maurice Strong

Biographies: Official biography, now ‘crashed’; Sourcewatch (neutral/positive), James Corbett, (highly critical); Ronald Bailey (highly critical)

In James Corbett’s words, Maurice Strong rose from being ‘a dirt poor high school dropout from Oak Lake, Manitoba, to become an international wheeler-dealer who is responsible for shaping our modern day globalist institutions’.

As a Rockefeller asset Maurice Strong (1929-2015) was a major force behind both the global warming narrative and the linking of that narrative with an argument for ever greater powers for the corporate-owned United Nations bureaucracy. His crowning achievement was the 2nd Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero in 1992.

Strong met David Rockefeller at the age of 18, and under Rockefeller’s patronage was given a minor, temporary position with the United Nations. Thereafter continuing sponsorship by Rockefeller led to a career in oil, and in parallel one as a mover and shaker in Canadian politics, including heading the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) – David Rockefeller was grooming Strong for great things.

Apparently impressed by his work at CIDA, UN Secretary General U Thant asked Strong to organize what became the first Earth Summit — the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972.’

1971 Stockholm: The UN Conference on the Human Environment (the Earth Summit)

In preparation for the Conference Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. The authors were Rene Dubos a microbiologist employed by Rockefeller researching antibiotics, with no previous interest in environmentalism, and BarbaraWard, who during the war had worked for the UK Ministry of Information before becoming the foreign editor of The Economist.

The Stockholm Conference signaled the beginning of modern environmental diplomacy. As an outcome of the Summit Maurice Strong founded and was first director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to coordinate the UN’s environmental activities and assist developing countries in implementing ‘environmentally sound’ policies and practices.
The Global Cooling Scare

As recently as the mid-1970s the threat of global cooling, rather than global warming, was a recurrent theme in the media. ‘The 140 Year Failed History of “Gorebull Warming” and “Ice Ages Doom”‘ gives some examples:

1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report

A 1974 CIA report, A Study of Climatological Research As It Pertains to Intelligence Problems referred to cold, floods and also drought, but overall assuming global cooling.
David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong Kick Off the Global Warming Scare

1977 From this point, ‘Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in the next century’.

1977 One of the first significant reports on ‘global warming’ was the report Energy and Climate, which warned that ‘average temperatures may rise 6 degrees Celsius by 2050 due to the burning of coal’ – perhaps the first example of climate catastrophism.

Energy and Climate was a Rockefeller report, produced by a Rockefeller employee. The report was prepared by the National Research Council (founded in 1916 with the help of John D. Rockefeller). At the time the chairman of NRC, Philip Handler, was simultaneously on the Board of Trustees of Rockefeller University, at a time when David Rockefeller chaired the Board’s Executive Committee.

1980 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), founded by Maurice Strong, produces the World Conservation Strategy. The strategy declares catogorically:

The most acute climatic problem, however, is carbon dioxide accumulation
as a result of the burning of fossil fuel, deforestation and changes in land use. At present rates of increase, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide may produce a significant warming of the lower atmosphere before the middle of the next century, particularly in the polar regions. This warming would probably change temperature patterns throughout most of the world, benefitting some regions and damaging others, possibly severely .

Thus from a position of warning about global cooling as late as 1976, by 1980, a mere four years later, the ‘science was settled’ by Rockefeller and Strong in favour of global warming, caused by human emissions of CO2, as the most acute climatic problem........
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby brainpanhandler » Sat Dec 28, 2019 9:49 am

Pfftts
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5121
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 170 guests