Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #530784 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-06 14:17 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-11-07 14:50 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 89 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 14:17 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Puppet_Sock <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-06 13:26 -0800
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-06 22:28 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-06 22:31 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 17:55 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-06 23:07 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 18:09 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 18:16 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 00:57 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 19:44 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution "Ringer" <byoung@peoplestel.net> - 2015-11-06 20:02 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 21:37 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-06 20:59 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 22:03 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-06 23:20 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 00:56 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-07 10:46 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 18:17 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-08 19:06 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-07 16:09 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Trawley Trash <trash@invalid.invalid> - 2015-11-07 05:42 -0800
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-06 17:56 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 09:33 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-07 10:22 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 00:58 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 22:27 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 23:40 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 00:20 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 01:00 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 07:10 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 08:23 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 10:31 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:00 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:16 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:21 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:29 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:35 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:48 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:39 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:11 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 20:17 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:42 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 21:17 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:37 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:12 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 20:19 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:43 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:37 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:12 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 20:20 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:44 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 09:43 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 07:08 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 14:16 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:42 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-08 00:50 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 08:45 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 17:56 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:58 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 08:02 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:09 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 19:47 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:38 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 19:58 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 20:07 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 21:28 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 21:32 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 22:20 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:02 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 21:59 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 21:26 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:05 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 21:40 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 18:01 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:29 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 20:20 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 01:49 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 22:35 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 04:39 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:10 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 17:30 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-07 09:37 -0800
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 12:43 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:43 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 16:52 -0800
US climate trolling militants infecting sci.physics 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-11-07 14:50 +0000
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 14:17 -0600 |
| Subject | Technology's role in a climate solution |
| Message-ID | <6KWdnXFPSslZl6DLnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Technology's role in a climate solution > http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 > A different approach. So far, the countries that have experienced the > most success in moving away from fossil fuels are Germany and Cuba. > Germany guarantees fixed tariffs to producers of renewable energy. > Cuba has focused on efficiency and also organic farming, which > conserves energy through its lower water requirements, reduced use of > farm equipment, and rejection of fertilizers and pesticides. The > German model might be replicated in developed countries, but not in > developing ones. A large percentage of Germany's renewable-generator > owners are individuals, cooperatives, or communities, and such > entities in developing nations lack the capital to invest in > renewable energy. The Cuban experience is even more difficult to > replicate, as organic farming is not as remunerative as commercial > cropping. > > For civilization to continue sustainably, human beings must shift > from fossil fuels to solar energy—despite the technical problems. And > investments are needed in biotic and other low-energy innovations. > But in the end, global energy consumption must be reduced by > something on the order of 60 percent. This will require a number of > profound non-technological changes. Energy equity must be established > among the world's nations—people in wealthy countries should not, as > they do today, use hundreds of times as much energy as people in the > poorest countries. Ownership rights over nature must be discarded in > favor of the right to use nature without destroying it. The global > economy must prioritize "risk minimization for all" over "gain > maximization for a few." A steady-state economy—a sustainable economy > that maintains nature’s balance—must be established. > > The implications of these changes are radical. The United States and > Canada must reduce their energy consumption by about 90 percent; > Europe, Australasia, and Japan must do so by about 75 percent. Cities > must shrink drastically and energy differentials between urban and > rural areas must disappear. Localism must be prioritized and > governance decentralized. Uniform risk and emissions standards must > be implemented for everyone. > -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Puppet_Sock <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 13:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a5722a96-87ea-4d35-b815-63e2e542ae6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #530784 |
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: [give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap snipped] It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably follow from global warming, that might come within an order of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes they demand would put us back to a level where the population was less than one fourth of what it is now. At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or forests or jungles allowed. At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to eat. At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways we have found to do science. What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they hope to kill.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 22:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.11.06.22.28.00@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #530787 |
On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800, Puppet_Sock wrote: > > The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. > They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting > to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they > hope to kill. > That was a great spiel. I hope you feel better after spewing all that drivel. Now you can climb into your late-model SUV and drive twenty miles one way to pick up a can of Sprite, a comic book, and a fresh battery for your remote. Oh yeah! That's the Utopian paradise that you strive to maintain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.11.06.22.31.41@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #530795 |
On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 22:28:01 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote: > a can of Sprite > Oops. Make that "diet Sprite."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 17:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jqbq3bl6eb8cohidhibf00nc8qh7vo9oq3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #530795 |
On 6 Nov 2015 22:28:01 GMT, Fabian Russell wrote: >On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800, Puppet_Sock wrote: > >> >> The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >> hope to kill. >> > >That was a great spiel. Indeed, it was. The paragraph above belongs on many signs in Paris.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 23:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2015.11.06.23.07.20@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #530799 |
On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 17:55:00 -0500, Wally W. wrote: > > The paragraph above belongs on many signs in Paris. > You belong on a sign in Queerville, USA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 18:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gocq3bp7mo9888ulu2fsq8vh33hlsi61an@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #530803 |
On 6 Nov 2015 23:07:21 GMT, Fabian Russell wrote: >On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 17:55:00 -0500, Wally W. wrote: > >> >> The paragraph above belongs on many signs in Paris. >> > >You belong on a sign in Queerville, USA. Speaking of "giggling malevolent monsters" ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 18:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <s2dq3b98u2550rq56kgvtljdkijk055gnj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #530787 |
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: >On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >[give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap snipped] > >It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >follow from global warming, that might come within an order >of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. > >At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >they demand would put us back to a level where the population >was less than one fourth of what it is now. > >At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >forests or jungles allowed. > >At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. > >At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >eat. > >At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >we have found to do science. > >What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? > >Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. > >The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >hope to kill. Sam: you *say* you want discussion. It is your turn. Or is Sam just an alarmist troll?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 00:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msuvgc-72a.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #530806 |
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: > >>On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>[give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap snipped] >> >>It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >>consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >>follow from global warming, that might come within an order >>of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. >> >>At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >>could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >>they demand would put us back to a level where the population >>was less than one fourth of what it is now. >> >>At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >>being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >>the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >>Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >>being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >>damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >>that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >>on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >>only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >>to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >>forests or jungles allowed. >> >>At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. >> >>At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >>is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >>rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >>would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >>eat. >> >>At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >>human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >>Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >>libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >>we have found to do science. >> >>What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? >> >>Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >>Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >>deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >>are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. >> >>The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>hope to kill. > > Sam: you *say* you want discussion. It is your turn. > > Or is Sam just an alarmist troll? Yep, just a spamming alarmist troll. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 19:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <84iq3bh92ptieaokn07ssda107mrraau1b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #530787 |
Cross-posting to alt.global-warming An eloquent and intelligent post. Sammy's link: > http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 Beware, greenies, the cogent reply could make your head 'splode: On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: >On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >[give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap snipped] > >It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >follow from global warming, that might come within an order >of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. > >At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >they demand would put us back to a level where the population >was less than one fourth of what it is now. > >At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >forests or jungles allowed. > >At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. > >At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >eat. > >At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >we have found to do science. > >What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? > >Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. > >The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >hope to kill.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ringer" <byoung@peoplestel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 20:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <PvWdnRQBLtU5xqDLnZ2dnUU7-eGdnZ2d@neonova.net> |
| In reply to | #530820 |
Wally W. wrote: > Cross-posting to alt.global-warming > > An eloquent and intelligent post. > > Sammy's link: >> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 > > Beware, greenies, the cogent reply could make your head 'splode: > > > On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: > >> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >> [give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap >> snipped] >> >> It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >> consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >> follow from global warming, that might come within an order >> of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. >> >> At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >> could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >> they demand would put us back to a level where the population >> was less than one fourth of what it is now. >> >> At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >> being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >> the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >> Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >> being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >> damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >> that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >> on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >> only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >> to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >> forests or jungles allowed. >> >> At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. >> >> At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >> is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >> rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >> would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >> eat. >> >> At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >> human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >> Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >> libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >> we have found to do science. >> >> What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? >> >> Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >> Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >> deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >> are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. >> >> The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >> hope to kill. Oh boy, and they call us "alarmists". Do you have any evidence, historical or otherwise, to back this up? Can you name any of these "warmist" who want to devastate the world, yet feel that they won't be effected by it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 21:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5snq3bhlvbmrn74gtbvsujlv6pbcv65at9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #530824 |
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0600, Ringer wrote: >Wally W. wrote: >> Cross-posting to alt.global-warming >> >> An eloquent and intelligent post. >> >> Sammy's link: >>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 >> >> Beware, greenies, the cogent reply could make your head 'splode: >> >> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: >> >>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>> [give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap >>> snipped] >>> >>> It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >>> consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >>> follow from global warming, that might come within an order >>> of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. >>> >>> At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >>> could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >>> they demand would put us back to a level where the population >>> was less than one fourth of what it is now. >>> >>> At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >>> being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >>> the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >>> Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >>> being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >>> damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >>> that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >>> on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >>> only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >>> to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >>> forests or jungles allowed. >>> >>> At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. >>> >>> At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >>> is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >>> rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >>> would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >>> eat. >>> >>> At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >>> human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >>> Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >>> libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >>> we have found to do science. >>> >>> What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? >>> >>> Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >>> Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >>> deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >>> are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. >>> >>> The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>> hope to kill. > >Oh boy, and they call us "alarmists". Do you have any evidence, historical >or otherwise, to back this up? Can you name any of these "warmist" who want >to devastate the world, yet feel that they won't be effected by it? > https://www.intellihub.com/united-nations-climate-czar-reveals-depopulation-plan-for-humanity/ we can definitely change those numbers and really should make every effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding the planetary carrying capacity. <http://www.axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/eugenicsdepopulation> the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by neo-Malthusians who want to depopulate the planet in the name of saving the environment. The pseudo-science of global warming has replaced the pseudo-science of eugenics as the justification for population reduction. <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/vatican-speaker-on-climate-thinks-there-are-6-billion-too-many-of-us/> “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maintain maintain : to cause (something) to exist or continue without changing Question: by what means should the population be *maintained* should it go "too high?" <http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/03/depopulation-of-the-masses-has-begun/> There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it….” Is that enough evidence for you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 20:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1jpb6$90n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #530826 |
On 11/6/2015 8:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0600, Ringer wrote: > >> Wally W. wrote: >>> Cross-posting to alt.global-warming >>> >>> An eloquent and intelligent post. >>> >>> Sammy's link: >>>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 >>> >>> Beware, greenies, the cogent reply could make your head 'splode: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: >>> >>>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> [give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap >>>> snipped] >>>> >>>> It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >>>> consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >>>> follow from global warming, that might come within an order >>>> of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. >>>> >>>> At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >>>> could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >>>> they demand would put us back to a level where the population >>>> was less than one fourth of what it is now. >>>> >>>> At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >>>> being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >>>> the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >>>> Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >>>> being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >>>> damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >>>> that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >>>> on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >>>> only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >>>> to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >>>> forests or jungles allowed. >>>> >>>> At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. >>>> >>>> At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >>>> is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >>>> rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >>>> would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >>>> eat. >>>> >>>> At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >>>> human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >>>> Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >>>> libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >>>> we have found to do science. >>>> >>>> What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? >>>> >>>> Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >>>> Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >>>> deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >>>> are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. >>>> >>>> The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>> hope to kill. >> >> Oh boy, and they call us "alarmists". Do you have any evidence, historical >> or otherwise, to back this up? Can you name any of these "warmist" who want >> to devastate the world, yet feel that they won't be effected by it? >> > > https://www.intellihub.com/united-nations-climate-czar-reveals-depopulation-plan-for-humanity/ > we can definitely change those numbers and really should make every > effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding > the planetary carrying capacity. > > <http://www.axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/eugenicsdepopulation> > the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by neo-Malthusians who > want to depopulate the planet in the name of saving the environment. > The pseudo-science of global warming has replaced the pseudo-science > of eugenics as the justification for population reduction. > > <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/vatican-speaker-on-climate-thinks-there-are-6-billion-too-many-of-us/> > “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we > have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying > capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones > Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maintain > maintain > : to cause (something) to exist or continue without changing > > Question: by what means should the population be *maintained* should > it go "too high?" > > <http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/03/depopulation-of-the-masses-has-begun/> > There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population > levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, > or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in > Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population > is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, > to reduce it….” > > > Is that enough evidence for you? People who are discussing the carrying capacity of the planet. Oh Noes! Hilarious! The nutjob couldn't find a single thing about; "festeringly evil. They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they hope to kill"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 22:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5fqq3bhf42fmn2t948veau886l7vk2e4hm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #530829 |
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:59:54 -0600, Unum wrote: >On 11/6/2015 8:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0600, Ringer wrote: >> >>> Wally W. wrote: >>>> Cross-posting to alt.global-warming >>>> >>>> An eloquent and intelligent post. >>>> >>>> Sammy's link: >>>>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 >>>> >>>> Beware, greenies, the cogent reply could make your head 'splode: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>> [give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap >>>>> snipped] >>>>> >>>>> It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >>>>> consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >>>>> follow from global warming, that might come within an order >>>>> of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. >>>>> >>>>> At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >>>>> could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >>>>> they demand would put us back to a level where the population >>>>> was less than one fourth of what it is now. >>>>> >>>>> At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >>>>> being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >>>>> the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >>>>> Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >>>>> being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >>>>> damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >>>>> that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >>>>> on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >>>>> only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >>>>> to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >>>>> forests or jungles allowed. >>>>> >>>>> At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. >>>>> >>>>> At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >>>>> is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >>>>> rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >>>>> would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >>>>> eat. >>>>> >>>>> At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >>>>> human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >>>>> Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >>>>> libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >>>>> we have found to do science. >>>>> >>>>> What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? >>>>> >>>>> Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >>>>> Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >>>>> deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >>>>> are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. >>>>> >>>>> The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>> hope to kill. >>> >>> Oh boy, and they call us "alarmists". Do you have any evidence, historical >>> or otherwise, to back this up? Can you name any of these "warmist" who want >>> to devastate the world, yet feel that they won't be effected by it? >>> >> >> https://www.intellihub.com/united-nations-climate-czar-reveals-depopulation-plan-for-humanity/ >> we can definitely change those numbers and really should make every >> effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding >> the planetary carrying capacity. >> >> <http://www.axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/eugenicsdepopulation> >> the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by neo-Malthusians who >> want to depopulate the planet in the name of saving the environment. >> The pseudo-science of global warming has replaced the pseudo-science >> of eugenics as the justification for population reduction. >> >> <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/vatican-speaker-on-climate-thinks-there-are-6-billion-too-many-of-us/> >> “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we >> have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying >> capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones >> Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. >> >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maintain >> maintain >> : to cause (something) to exist or continue without changing >> >> Question: by what means should the population be *maintained* should >> it go "too high?" >> >> <http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/03/depopulation-of-the-masses-has-begun/> >> There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population >> levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, >> or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in >> Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population >> is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, >> to reduce it….” >> >> >> Is that enough evidence for you? > >People who are discussing the carrying capacity of the planet. Oh Noes! > >Hilarious! The nutjob couldn't find a single thing about; >"festeringly evil. They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching >and waiting to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >hope to kill" If you couldn't find any "festering evil" related to the above, what does that tell us about you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 23:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1k1jj$t2j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #530830 |
On 11/6/2015 9:03 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:59:54 -0600, Unum wrote: > >> On 11/6/2015 8:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0600, Ringer wrote: >>> >>>> Wally W. wrote: >>>>> Cross-posting to alt.global-warming >>>>> >>>>> An eloquent and intelligent post. >>>>> >>>>> Sammy's link: >>>>>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 >>>>> >>>>> Beware, greenies, the cogent reply could make your head 'splode: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>> [give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap >>>>>> snipped] >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >>>>>> consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >>>>>> follow from global warming, that might come within an order >>>>>> of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. >>>>>> >>>>>> At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >>>>>> could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >>>>>> they demand would put us back to a level where the population >>>>>> was less than one fourth of what it is now. >>>>>> >>>>>> At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >>>>>> being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >>>>>> the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >>>>>> Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >>>>>> being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >>>>>> damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >>>>>> that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >>>>>> on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >>>>>> only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >>>>>> to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >>>>>> forests or jungles allowed. >>>>>> >>>>>> At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. >>>>>> >>>>>> At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >>>>>> is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >>>>>> rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >>>>>> would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >>>>>> eat. >>>>>> >>>>>> At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >>>>>> human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >>>>>> Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >>>>>> libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >>>>>> we have found to do science. >>>>>> >>>>>> What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? >>>>>> >>>>>> Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >>>>>> Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >>>>>> deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >>>>>> are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. >>>>>> >>>>>> The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>> hope to kill. >>>> >>>> Oh boy, and they call us "alarmists". Do you have any evidence, historical >>>> or otherwise, to back this up? Can you name any of these "warmist" who want >>>> to devastate the world, yet feel that they won't be effected by it? >>>> >>> >>> https://www.intellihub.com/united-nations-climate-czar-reveals-depopulation-plan-for-humanity/ >>> we can definitely change those numbers and really should make every >>> effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding >>> the planetary carrying capacity. >>> >>> <http://www.axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/eugenicsdepopulation> >>> the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by neo-Malthusians who >>> want to depopulate the planet in the name of saving the environment. >>> The pseudo-science of global warming has replaced the pseudo-science >>> of eugenics as the justification for population reduction. >>> >>> <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/vatican-speaker-on-climate-thinks-there-are-6-billion-too-many-of-us/> >>> “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we >>> have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying >>> capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones >>> Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. >>> >>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maintain >>> maintain >>> : to cause (something) to exist or continue without changing >>> >>> Question: by what means should the population be *maintained* should >>> it go "too high?" >>> >>> <http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/03/depopulation-of-the-masses-has-begun/> >>> There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population >>> levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, >>> or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in >>> Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population >>> is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, >>> to reduce it….” >>> >>> >>> Is that enough evidence for you? >> >> People who are discussing the carrying capacity of the planet. Oh Noes! >> >> Hilarious! The nutjob couldn't find a single thing about; >> "festeringly evil. They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching >> and waiting to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >> hope to kill" > > If you couldn't find any "festering evil" related to the above, what > does that tell us about you? Lol, you pathetic little fool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 00:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ck4r3b1fabgh9l522mh81do7f1vbk01a7a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #530837 |
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 23:20:56 -0600, Unum wrote: >On 11/6/2015 9:03 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:59:54 -0600, Unum wrote: >> >>> On 11/6/2015 8:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0600, Ringer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> Cross-posting to alt.global-warming >>>>>> >>>>>> An eloquent and intelligent post. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sammy's link: >>>>>>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 >>>>>> >>>>>> Beware, greenies, the cogent reply could make your head 'splode: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>> [give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap >>>>>>> snipped] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >>>>>>> consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >>>>>>> follow from global warming, that might come within an order >>>>>>> of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >>>>>>> could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >>>>>>> they demand would put us back to a level where the population >>>>>>> was less than one fourth of what it is now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >>>>>>> being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >>>>>>> the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >>>>>>> Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >>>>>>> being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >>>>>>> damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >>>>>>> that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >>>>>>> on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >>>>>>> only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >>>>>>> to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >>>>>>> forests or jungles allowed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >>>>>>> is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >>>>>>> rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >>>>>>> would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >>>>>>> eat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >>>>>>> human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >>>>>>> Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >>>>>>> libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >>>>>>> we have found to do science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >>>>>>> Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >>>>>>> deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >>>>>>> are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>>> hope to kill. >>>>> >>>>> Oh boy, and they call us "alarmists". Do you have any evidence, historical >>>>> or otherwise, to back this up? Can you name any of these "warmist" who want >>>>> to devastate the world, yet feel that they won't be effected by it? >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.intellihub.com/united-nations-climate-czar-reveals-depopulation-plan-for-humanity/ >>>> we can definitely change those numbers and really should make every >>>> effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding >>>> the planetary carrying capacity. >>>> >>>> <http://www.axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/eugenicsdepopulation> >>>> the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by neo-Malthusians who >>>> want to depopulate the planet in the name of saving the environment. >>>> The pseudo-science of global warming has replaced the pseudo-science >>>> of eugenics as the justification for population reduction. >>>> >>>> <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/vatican-speaker-on-climate-thinks-there-are-6-billion-too-many-of-us/> >>>> “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we >>>> have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying >>>> capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones >>>> Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. >>>> >>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maintain >>>> maintain >>>> : to cause (something) to exist or continue without changing >>>> >>>> Question: by what means should the population be *maintained* should >>>> it go "too high?" >>>> >>>> <http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/03/depopulation-of-the-masses-has-begun/> >>>> There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population >>>> levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, >>>> or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in >>>> Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population >>>> is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, >>>> to reduce it….” >>>> >>>> >>>> Is that enough evidence for you? >>> >>> People who are discussing the carrying capacity of the planet. Oh Noes! >>> >>> Hilarious! The nutjob couldn't find a single thing about; >>> "festeringly evil. They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching >>> and waiting to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>> hope to kill" >> >> If you couldn't find any "festering evil" related to the above, what >> does that tell us about you? > >Lol, you pathetic little fool. So you have no answer to the question?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 10:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1l9om$s3h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #530843 |
On 11/6/2015 11:56 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 23:20:56 -0600, Unum wrote: > >> On 11/6/2015 9:03 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:59:54 -0600, Unum wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/6/2015 8:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0600, Ringer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> Cross-posting to alt.global-warming >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An eloquent and intelligent post. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sammy's link: >>>>>>>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Beware, greenies, the cogent reply could make your head 'splode: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>> [give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap >>>>>>>> snipped] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >>>>>>>> consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >>>>>>>> follow from global warming, that might come within an order >>>>>>>> of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >>>>>>>> could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >>>>>>>> they demand would put us back to a level where the population >>>>>>>> was less than one fourth of what it is now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >>>>>>>> being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >>>>>>>> the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >>>>>>>> Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >>>>>>>> being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >>>>>>>> damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >>>>>>>> that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >>>>>>>> on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >>>>>>>> only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >>>>>>>> to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >>>>>>>> forests or jungles allowed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >>>>>>>> is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >>>>>>>> rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >>>>>>>> would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >>>>>>>> eat. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >>>>>>>> human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >>>>>>>> Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >>>>>>>> libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >>>>>>>> we have found to do science. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >>>>>>>> Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >>>>>>>> deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >>>>>>>> are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>>>> hope to kill. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh boy, and they call us "alarmists". Do you have any evidence, historical >>>>>> or otherwise, to back this up? Can you name any of these "warmist" who want >>>>>> to devastate the world, yet feel that they won't be effected by it? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.intellihub.com/united-nations-climate-czar-reveals-depopulation-plan-for-humanity/ >>>>> we can definitely change those numbers and really should make every >>>>> effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding >>>>> the planetary carrying capacity. >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/eugenicsdepopulation> >>>>> the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by neo-Malthusians who >>>>> want to depopulate the planet in the name of saving the environment. >>>>> The pseudo-science of global warming has replaced the pseudo-science >>>>> of eugenics as the justification for population reduction. >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/vatican-speaker-on-climate-thinks-there-are-6-billion-too-many-of-us/> >>>>> “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we >>>>> have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying >>>>> capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” >>>>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones >>>>> Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maintain >>>>> maintain >>>>> : to cause (something) to exist or continue without changing >>>>> >>>>> Question: by what means should the population be *maintained* should >>>>> it go "too high?" >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/03/depopulation-of-the-masses-has-begun/> >>>>> There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population >>>>> levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, >>>>> or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in >>>>> Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population >>>>> is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, >>>>> to reduce it….” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is that enough evidence for you? >>>> >>>> People who are discussing the carrying capacity of the planet. Oh Noes! >>>> >>>> Hilarious! The nutjob couldn't find a single thing about; >>>> "festeringly evil. They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching >>>> and waiting to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>> hope to kill" >>> >>> If you couldn't find any "festering evil" related to the above, what >>> does that tell us about you? >> >> Lol, you pathetic little fool. > > So you have no answer to the question? "Can you name any of these "warmist" who want to devastate the world, yet feel that they won't be effected by it?" The nutjob couldn't find a single thing about; "festeringly evil"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 18:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7i1t3bhr63kfqo816p7ib6q1c7rdbsj3ei@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #530925 |
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 10:46:19 -0600, Unum wrote: >On 11/6/2015 11:56 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 23:20:56 -0600, Unum wrote: >> >>> On 11/6/2015 9:03 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:59:54 -0600, Unum wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/6/2015 8:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0600, Ringer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>> Cross-posting to alt.global-warming >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An eloquent and intelligent post. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sammy's link: >>>>>>>>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Beware, greenies, the cogent reply could make your head 'splode: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>> [give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap >>>>>>>>> snipped] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >>>>>>>>> consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >>>>>>>>> follow from global warming, that might come within an order >>>>>>>>> of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >>>>>>>>> could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >>>>>>>>> they demand would put us back to a level where the population >>>>>>>>> was less than one fourth of what it is now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >>>>>>>>> being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >>>>>>>>> the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >>>>>>>>> Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >>>>>>>>> being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >>>>>>>>> damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >>>>>>>>> that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >>>>>>>>> on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >>>>>>>>> only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >>>>>>>>> to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >>>>>>>>> forests or jungles allowed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >>>>>>>>> is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >>>>>>>>> rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >>>>>>>>> would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >>>>>>>>> eat. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >>>>>>>>> human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >>>>>>>>> Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >>>>>>>>> libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >>>>>>>>> we have found to do science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >>>>>>>>> Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >>>>>>>>> deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >>>>>>>>> are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>>>>> hope to kill. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh boy, and they call us "alarmists". Do you have any evidence, historical >>>>>>> or otherwise, to back this up? Can you name any of these "warmist" who want >>>>>>> to devastate the world, yet feel that they won't be effected by it? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.intellihub.com/united-nations-climate-czar-reveals-depopulation-plan-for-humanity/ >>>>>> we can definitely change those numbers and really should make every >>>>>> effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding >>>>>> the planetary carrying capacity. >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/eugenicsdepopulation> >>>>>> the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by neo-Malthusians who >>>>>> want to depopulate the planet in the name of saving the environment. >>>>>> The pseudo-science of global warming has replaced the pseudo-science >>>>>> of eugenics as the justification for population reduction. >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/vatican-speaker-on-climate-thinks-there-are-6-billion-too-many-of-us/> >>>>>> “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we >>>>>> have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying >>>>>> capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones >>>>>> Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maintain >>>>>> maintain >>>>>> : to cause (something) to exist or continue without changing >>>>>> >>>>>> Question: by what means should the population be *maintained* should >>>>>> it go "too high?" >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/03/depopulation-of-the-masses-has-begun/> >>>>>> There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population >>>>>> levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, >>>>>> or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in >>>>>> Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population >>>>>> is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, >>>>>> to reduce it….” >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that enough evidence for you? >>>>> >>>>> People who are discussing the carrying capacity of the planet. Oh Noes! >>>>> >>>>> Hilarious! The nutjob couldn't find a single thing about; >>>>> "festeringly evil. They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching >>>>> and waiting to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>> hope to kill" >>>> >>>> If you couldn't find any "festering evil" related to the above, what >>>> does that tell us about you? >>> >>> Lol, you pathetic little fool. >> >> So you have no answer to the question? > >"Can you name any of these "warmist" who want to devastate the world, yet >feel that they won't be effected by it?" The nutjob couldn't find a single >thing about; "festeringly evil" For economy of effort, let's start with the posters in this thread. Do you think any match that description? If so, who; and why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 19:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n1orel$81a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #531056 |
On 11/7/2015 5:17 PM, Wally W. wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 10:46:19 -0600, Unum wrote: > >> On 11/6/2015 11:56 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 23:20:56 -0600, Unum wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/6/2015 9:03 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:59:54 -0600, Unum wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/6/2015 8:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0600, Ringer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> Cross-posting to alt.global-warming >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An eloquent and intelligent post. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sammy's link: >>>>>>>>>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Beware, greenies, the cogent reply could make your head 'splode: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap >>>>>>>>>> snipped] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >>>>>>>>>> consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >>>>>>>>>> follow from global warming, that might come within an order >>>>>>>>>> of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >>>>>>>>>> could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >>>>>>>>>> they demand would put us back to a level where the population >>>>>>>>>> was less than one fourth of what it is now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >>>>>>>>>> being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >>>>>>>>>> the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >>>>>>>>>> Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >>>>>>>>>> being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >>>>>>>>>> damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >>>>>>>>>> that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >>>>>>>>>> on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >>>>>>>>>> only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >>>>>>>>>> to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >>>>>>>>>> forests or jungles allowed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >>>>>>>>>> is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >>>>>>>>>> rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >>>>>>>>>> would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >>>>>>>>>> eat. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >>>>>>>>>> human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >>>>>>>>>> Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >>>>>>>>>> libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >>>>>>>>>> we have found to do science. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >>>>>>>>>> Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >>>>>>>>>> deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >>>>>>>>>> are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>>>>>> hope to kill. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh boy, and they call us "alarmists". Do you have any evidence, historical >>>>>>>> or otherwise, to back this up? Can you name any of these "warmist" who want >>>>>>>> to devastate the world, yet feel that they won't be effected by it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.intellihub.com/united-nations-climate-czar-reveals-depopulation-plan-for-humanity/ >>>>>>> we can definitely change those numbers and really should make every >>>>>>> effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding >>>>>>> the planetary carrying capacity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/eugenicsdepopulation> >>>>>>> the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by neo-Malthusians who >>>>>>> want to depopulate the planet in the name of saving the environment. >>>>>>> The pseudo-science of global warming has replaced the pseudo-science >>>>>>> of eugenics as the justification for population reduction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/vatican-speaker-on-climate-thinks-there-are-6-billion-too-many-of-us/> >>>>>>> “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we >>>>>>> have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying >>>>>>> capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones >>>>>>> Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maintain >>>>>>> maintain >>>>>>> : to cause (something) to exist or continue without changing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Question: by what means should the population be *maintained* should >>>>>>> it go "too high?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/03/depopulation-of-the-masses-has-begun/> >>>>>>> There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population >>>>>>> levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, >>>>>>> or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in >>>>>>> Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population >>>>>>> is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, >>>>>>> to reduce it….” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is that enough evidence for you? >>>>>> >>>>>> People who are discussing the carrying capacity of the planet. Oh Noes! >>>>>> >>>>>> Hilarious! The nutjob couldn't find a single thing about; >>>>>> "festeringly evil. They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching >>>>>> and waiting to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>> hope to kill" >>>>> >>>>> If you couldn't find any "festering evil" related to the above, what >>>>> does that tell us about you? >>>> >>>> Lol, you pathetic little fool. >>> >>> So you have no answer to the question? >> >> "Can you name any of these "warmist" who want to devastate the world, yet >> feel that they won't be effected by it?" The nutjob couldn't find a single >> thing about; "festeringly evil" > > For economy of effort, let's start with the posters in this thread. > > Do you think any match that description? If so, who; and why? Why don't you name a few and cite specific evidence, wally? Get a few of your sockpuppets to help you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 16:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <da77kdFjejtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #530829 |
On 11/6/2015 9:59 PM, Unum wrote: > On 11/6/2015 8:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:02:04 -0600, Ringer wrote: >> >>> Wally W. wrote: >>>> Cross-posting to alt.global-warming >>>> >>>> An eloquent and intelligent post. >>>> >>>> Sammy's link: >>>>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815 >>>> >>>> Beware, greenies, the cogent reply could make your head 'splode: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:26:12 -0800 (PST), Puppet_Sock wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:17:17 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>> [give up, renounce, roll back, localize, shrink, do with less, crap >>>>> snipped] >>>>> >>>>> It would be an interesting game to try to find some possible >>>>> consequence, or set of consequences, that might conceivably >>>>> follow from global warming, that might come within an order >>>>> of magnitude of being as bad as the scheme described here. >>>>> >>>>> At a minimum, it would kill 3 of 4 people alive today. It >>>>> could well be a significantly larger fraction. The changes >>>>> they demand would put us back to a level where the population >>>>> was less than one fourth of what it is now. >>>>> >>>>> At a minimum, it would result in the remaining wilderness >>>>> being taken over for crop land. And quite possibly much of >>>>> the less productive areas that have been ignored in the past. >>>>> Such as relatively dry areas being irrigated, and rivers >>>>> being emptied to do it. Thus entire river basins of ecological >>>>> damage would be enforced. The changes they demand would mean >>>>> that farming methods that now produce enough to feed 7 billion, >>>>> on less land than was used to feed 1 billion when there were >>>>> only 1 billion of us, would be dropped. Meaning we would need >>>>> to farm correspondingly more farm land. No more swamps or >>>>> forests or jungles allowed. >>>>> >>>>> At least, until enough people died of starvation and illness. >>>>> >>>>> At a minimum it would result in pretty much every species that >>>>> is listed as endangered being driven to extinction. And quite >>>>> rapidly. Because every possible source of calories and protein >>>>> would be exploited by desperate people looking for something to >>>>> eat. >>>>> >>>>> At a minimum it would drastically reduce the capability the >>>>> human race has for innovation, science, and increased technology. >>>>> Because starving sick people have no time for science. Nor for >>>>> libraries or universities or any of the other places and ways >>>>> we have found to do science. >>>>> >>>>> What are the worst scare stories the warmistas pummel us with? >>>>> >>>>> Rising sea level. More storms. More droughts. More malaria. >>>>> Trivial. In comparison to the enforced slaughter, starvation, >>>>> deprivation, and closing of possibilities that the warmistas >>>>> are demanding, it appears to be luxury and opulence. >>>>> >>>>> The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>> hope to kill. >>> >>> Oh boy, and they call us "alarmists". Do you have any evidence, >>> historical >>> or otherwise, to back this up? Can you name any of these "warmist" >>> who want >>> to devastate the world, yet feel that they won't be effected by it? >>> >> >> https://www.intellihub.com/united-nations-climate-czar-reveals-depopulation-plan-for-humanity/ >> >> we can definitely change those numbers and really should make every >> effort to change the numbers because we are already today, exceeding >> the planetary carrying capacity. >> >> <http://www.axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/eugenicsdepopulation> >> the environmentalist movement has been hijacked by neo-Malthusians who >> want to depopulate the planet in the name of saving the environment. >> The pseudo-science of global warming has replaced the pseudo-science >> of eugenics as the justification for population reduction. >> >> <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/12/vatican-speaker-on-climate-thinks-there-are-6-billion-too-many-of-us/> >> >> “In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we >> have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying >> capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones >> Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. >> >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maintain >> maintain >> : to cause (something) to exist or continue without changing >> >> Question: by what means should the population be *maintained* should >> it go "too high?" And who decides which of us should stay and which should "go"? Perhaps all those who suggest the population must be culled ought to be the first to give up their lives to prove the sincerity of their ideals. >> <http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/12/03/depopulation-of-the-masses-has-begun/> >> >> There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population >> levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, >> or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in >> Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population >> is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, >> to reduce it….” >> >> >> Is that enough evidence for you? > > People who are discussing the carrying capacity of the planet. Oh Noes! > > Hilarious! The nutjob couldn't find a single thing about; > "festeringly evil. They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching > and waiting to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they > hope to kill" >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web