More Proof ENVIRONMENTALISTS are EVIL
More quotes showing that environmentalists want us all dead and are willing to lie about their agenda and supposed science.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
.”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
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.
of the value of ethical self interest.
Of course, leftist leaders usually do know better. They just want their followers to continue not using their brains.
That should come with a note that states: "You now have as many bullets as members in your group. Do as you say."
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
As a result, they all died out. Guess their Judgement Day came early.
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.
The environmentalists have been saying it. And they mean it: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...
Is there going to be an Atlas Summit this year?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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...
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.
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".
doubt), it is sickening.
“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.
"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...
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.
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.
The left are MASTERS at intellectualizing issues for this purpose. You are caught in their web.
Do you deny that the ultimate goal of all leftists, whatever "concepts" they flog, is power over all?
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.
Load more comments...