“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.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.” – Al Gore, Climate Change activist
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, ex-member of Greenpeace commenting on the secret of Greenpeace’s success
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…” – David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member
“We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.” – Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.” – David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is possible under capitalism” – Judi Bari, principal organizer of Earth First!
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, first Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” – Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of TBS and CNN
“It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it.” – Jacques Cousteau, interview with the UNESCO Courier
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” – Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species … Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” – Les U. Knight, founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
“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
16 comments:
this should send shivers down the spine of everybody who reads this.
specielly the hippie left, that makes personal moral freedom their main focus. truly, they are stooges, and being duped accordingly.
Sorry, no shivers here. You want insane quotes? Listen to one hour of Glenn Beck. (There is NOTHING wrong with desiring a decrease in human population; who cares what someone else thinks about that?!) You can post and post about supposed environmental conspiracies and statistics (it's not a shock that people can make stats say ANYTHING), but science is science. Period. Honestly, I don't understand how global warming denialists get away with being included in the term "conservative," since industrial destruction without regard to environmental impact is the exact opposite of conservation.
And please don't tell me this isn't about being a denialist. Why are you posting all this environmental "scandal" stuff (BTW, I'm not hearing much about this anywhere else) if that's not what you mean? (If it's not, I am open to hearing your correction.) I understand this isn't necessarily about you convincing ME, but I sincerly do not care whether the East Anglia peeps used fake data or threw out original data. Global warming is a fact, and I don't need one group in the UK to prove or disprove that for me - because I took high school and college science classes.
apparently, global warming hasnt occured in 10yrs.
and when it did occur, there is no proof that anything man did caused it.
(in most respects, i would say the opposite is true. we have more pollution now than ever in history, and the earth is in a 10yr cooling trend.)
that is the issue.
Amanda,
If there is nothing wrong with desiring a decrease in human population, how would you go about bringing it about? Or is it all talk?
Science is science. I agree. What was going on at East Anglia, which underpins virtually ALL of the science in AGW, wasn't science. This isn't going away because nothing is settled.
And Gino's point is right. The issue isn't whether or not the earth has warmed in the last 50 years. It probably has. The larger issue is how much and is the change out of historical norms. There's strong reason to believe that what has happened in the last 50 years is hardly unusual.
But the key thing is this: pretty much all the statistical information, and the modeling that has come from it, is interrelated in this case. Watch what happens when the NASA data is finally pried free.
Amanda, Amanda, Amanda,
The hell with quotes, the hell with facts. All that needs to be done is a stone being thrown in the way of someone in the other side, and the point is once again legitimized.
You also paint a picture that people who question global climate change theory are denialists. That is not the case for most. It's logical to do everything you can to save the environment. What's not logical is to throw the baby out with the bathwater to get there. Politicians are basing draconian issues such as Cap & trade on lies. Doesn't that bother you at all? Even if the end justifies the means, what are looking for in the end? Did it ever occur to you that what you have chosen to be FACT, might be at least partially wrong?
Lastly, if we need reduced populations, I suggest the proponents of such elitist attitudes start by offing themselves. Ted Turner, your carbon footprint has been huge, how about you first!!!!
Why are you posting all this environmental "scandal" stuff (BTW, I'm not hearing much about this anywhere else)[?]
You say that you're not hearing it much anywhere else? Interesting point.
because I took high school and college science classes.
Another interesting point. Mr. D, did you take any science classes? I did. Heck, I even took environmental science.
You say that you're not hearing it much anywhere else? Interesting point.
It is an interesting point, WBP. It's also why I keep coming back to this topic. People aren't hearing it. The larger question is, do people want to hear it? Our California-based friend doesn't seem that interested.
Mr. D, did you take any science classes?
Why yes, Picklesworth. Yes, I did. Several, in fact.
Mr. D, you said that since the data was lost, data with which we implement laws for regulating environmental impact, then this means that all of these regulations should be removed. You implored us to think about much money has been spent modifying industry to be less destructive. Is this not an example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? The data wasn't the only source of information in the whole world; why would we instantly just erase any regulation until the East Anglia people can produce real numbers again? (Not that anyone will cease imply that they're all fake in the future.)
Population decreases - I wouldn't suggest anything to decrease the population directly, because that is not my agenda. Improving education and economics (ergo, birth control) has proven to be enough of a population "decreaser."
Anonymous - You have a well-written comment, and a good argument, but throwing "elitism" in there just makes you look helplessly manipulated by media soundbites!
Mr. D, you said that since the data was lost, data with which we implement laws for regulating environmental impact, then this means that all of these regulations should be removed.
No I didn't. Strawman argument.
You implored us to think about much money has been spent modifying industry to be less destructive.
No, I didn't do that, either. Another strawman.
Is this not an example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
It would be if I'd said any of those things. But I haven't. Strawman number 3.
The data wasn't the only source of information in the whole world;
No, but it undergirds almost all of the models that are being used to compel action. Strawman number 4.
[W]hy would we instantly just erase any regulation until the East Anglia people can produce real numbers again? (Not that anyone will cease imply that they're all fake in the future.)
We wouldn't. We just wouldn't use the compromised data to impose huge new regulatory regimes. And if the data were open source and subject to review, any critics wouldn't be credible on the issue, so the claims that they would still claim to be fake is likely false, too. Strawmen #5 and #6.
You can do better than this reductio ad absurdum stuff, Amanda. And if you had better arguments, you'd be using them.
And by the way, there's a lot more happening in this scandal. I'll have an update later, perhaps even tonight if I can get to it.
"Honestly, I don't understand how global warming denialists get away with..."
No one has denied that the earth has been warming over the past 10,000 years.
...
"but I sincerly do not care whether the East Anglia peeps used fake data or threw out original data."
You must be really good at taking tests because you have failed to understand the scientific process.
...
As for decreasing the population I have one simple question; why? scientifically speaking, of course.
In God We Trust, all others must bring data.
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." Says Wikipedia.
Labeling my comment a straw man argument is giving me a lot more credit for manipulation than I deserve. If my comment is misrepresentative, then it wasn't willful.
Here's where I am getting what I perceived to be your point:
"The way the missing data have been used is scandalous, Rich. There's no getting around that. And the way the True Believers in AGW have been behaving is equally scandalous. I don't want to ever listen to another lecture about "settled science" or how we're finally using "science" in the right way when what has happened here is about as blatant a misuse of the scientific method as I have ever seen. This is Piltdown Man-level fraud, except that the politicians and the well-situated people around them were bidding fair to fundamentally re-alter the way the planet behaves by demanding huge cuts in industrial production and (conveniently) taxing the snot of anyone who couldn't jump through the hoops. Literally trillions of dollars were at stake here, Rich. And it won't do for you to go all Solomonic or "one side overplays, the other side underplays" on this one. This is a huge, huge story."
Your repetitive coverage of the issue added to my perception. And honestly I think you're just getting carried away with Straw Men 4-6. I apologize if I misrepresented your POV and unwittingly reverted to hyperbole.
If I had a better argument, then I would be using it... OK - here's the thing. My comment on this post wasn't an argument. It was what your post made me think when I read it.
(Which is that implying that the things people say about decreasing the population has NOTHING to do with whether or not climate change should be an important international cause. Ugh, and PLEASE don't say, "that's not what I said." If that's not the case, then why not say what you are saying?)
The second comment was just what I thought you are trying to communicate.
I like reading this blog because it makes me think about issues from a different point of view. Sometimes it changes my mind, but I suppose this isn't turning out to be one of those times.
Amanda,
Fair enough. It's funny -- I've spent a lot of time on this, but apparently I haven't made myself clear enough. Simply stated:
1) I do not reject all regulation. I just expect that any regulation undertaken, especially that which would interfere with my liberties, had better have a good reason.
2) The correct number of regulations is the smallest number that gets a good result, because hugely complicated regulations can make criminals out of people who are acting in good faith.
3) The regulations on offer in Copenhagen will fundamentally alter all of our liberties and are based on what has been exposed to be very rickety underpinnings.
4) We can't realistically undertake what is on offer in Copenhagen without imposing tyranny. And a tyranny of bureaucracy is no more benign than any other form of tyranny.
Oh, and Malthus was wrong, is wrong and forever will be wrong. My support goes to the Norman Borlaugs of the world, not the swells whom I've quoted here.
In order to solve America's debt and deficit problems people who are receiving more money than contributing need to die. It's a matter of fiscal responsibility (and sarcasm of course.)
In order to solve America's debt and deficit problems people who are receiving more money than contributing need to die. It's a matter of fiscal responsibility (and sarcasm of course.)
Of course. Very Swiftian of you. And if I suggest that the culling begin in the coastal regions before spreading inland, I'm not serious either. Problem is, I'm not sure some of these other folks are kidding.
"What I hate about the media harassment, is that I, and many, many people - DO NOT CARE. I wish the media was working harder at bringing to light issues of actual importance."
Amanda, I realize that this post has grown dead, but when I saw your words over on the Tiger thread at Gino's, they just struck me as relevant to this one. I think you are right, by the way. Journalism does tend to ignore the really important stuff.
Post a Comment