In their own words
Via Tom Nelson, here's a collection of choice quotes from assorted enviro-loons. I reproduce a few of the juiciest nuggets below...
For those of you who don't know, Paul Ehrlich was the author of The Population Bomb.
As you might be able to tell, Ehrlich has a talent for being wrong. But I digress...
Oh, no, wait; here he is again.
Onwards...
That, Michael, is called "pulling up the ladder behind you", I believe. Although I prefer an uglier name: murder.
He is correct, of course. Some 1–3 million people a year die of malaria (and between 300 and 500 million are affected) which was, at one point, very well controlled by DDT.
So well done on that score, Charles; many millions of humans are, indeed, not now living because of that decision. I would like to see you condemn your own family so casually...
Still, moving on...
Yeah, it's always been a bit inconvenient, eh? Still, that's one of the climate change alarmists' favourite tactics: if the science doesn't back you, just lie.
The "science" is, of course, pretty much all phoney; that which isn't outright lies is either obfuscation or deeply unreliable. As I keep saying, wake up: we're being lied to.
Do go and read the rest of the quotes: they're all along the same lines...
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
—Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
—Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)
For those of you who don't know, Paul Ehrlich was the author of The Population Bomb.
The Population Bomb (1968) is a book written by Paul R. Ehrlich. A best-selling work, it predicted disaster for humanity due to overpopulation and the "population explosion". The book predicted that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death", that nothing can be done to avoid mass famine greater than any in the history, and radical action is needed to limit the overpopulation.
As you might be able to tell, Ehrlich has a talent for being wrong. But I digress...
Oh, no, wait; here he is again.
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
—Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist’s Perspective on Nuclear Power”, May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report.
Onwards...
“We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the same industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
—Michael Oppenheimer. Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University. He joined the Princeton faculty after more than two decades with Environmental Defense, is a long-time participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), serving most recently as a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.
That, Michael, is called "pulling up the ladder behind you", I believe. Although I prefer an uglier name: murder.
“The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.”
—John Shuttleworth, FoE manual writer.
“People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this (ban of DDT) is as good a way as any.”
—Charles Wurster, Environmental Defense Fund.
He is correct, of course. Some 1–3 million people a year die of malaria (and between 300 and 500 million are affected) which was, at one point, very well controlled by DDT.
In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969.
So well done on that score, Charles; many millions of humans are, indeed, not now living because of that decision. I would like to see you condemn your own family so casually...
Still, moving on...
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
—Dave Forman, Earth First! and Sierra Club director (1995-1997)
"We have to get rid of that warm medieval period."
—Jonathan Overpeck, a Professor at U of Arizona and IPCC Lead Author in an email to David Deming, a professor at U of Oklahoma.
Yeah, it's always been a bit inconvenient, eh? Still, that's one of the climate change alarmists' favourite tactics: if the science doesn't back you, just lie.
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits... climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
—Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald 14 Dec, 1998.
The "science" is, of course, pretty much all phoney; that which isn't outright lies is either obfuscation or deeply unreliable. As I keep saying, wake up: we're being lied to.
Do go and read the rest of the quotes: they're all along the same lines...
Labels: campaigning, corruption, cunts, environmentalism, liars, pointless wastes of time and money, pompous demagogues
| 18 blogger comments
| links to this post
18 Blogger Comments:
Coupled with the EU, it's almost as if the left looked at Stalin fucking up Great Mother Russia and decided to create a vast conspiracy to subjugate and dehumanise the world...
... wait a minute, wrong blog, that's the other blog, at the docks.
Just remember that 'environmentalism' means 'all encompassing insanity' ...
Getting us to believe them is the easy part. They still need to make us care. Or to be more precise, care enough to live like a peasant. Can you see that happening? I can't.
Is there a source on the Overpeck-Deming email? Deming is very close to your own views, DK. That is to say he does not accept that anthropogenic global warming has been proved nor that global warming, if it is real, would cause the kinds of problems that are predicted.
(On a personal level, having met the man, I'll also say that he's a complete prick who is altogether too impressed with himself and the excuse for a university where he teaches/bullies. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day...)
I think Hooker&Gin is wrong. They don't need to get us to care. They don't give a flying fuck what commoners think. If they can stitch up international treaties to push forward their agenda, they do not need our consent.
Devil - I have not read Ehrlich but according to one source I came across 15 M-I-L-L-I-O-N children die each year from starvation.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm
Remember the global population has TRIPLED in less than 100 years [from 2 to over 6 billion souls].
If we [as a species] are already failing so spectacularly to prevent millions of children from dying a slow and agonising death - do you think famine will be more or less of a problem once the worlds population tops 7billion in 2050 ?
Surely, Ehrlichs warning rings true, to argue about precise numbers is merely semenatics IMHO
a&e,
Most famines are not resource based as such (except on the very local level, obviously). They are political.
Countries which could provide food to their people don't for a wide variety of reasons. As we see in Darfur sometimes the rulers of a nation just want certain people out of the way and starvation is as good a weapon as any.
Poverty kills children, but statist "green" solutions - such as not being born in the first place - are unlikely to help.
A&E,
As Anon has said, the vast majority of these deaths are politically inflicted (for an example, see Ethiopia in the 80s).
May I recommend reading P J O'Rourke's All The Trouble In The World, which has a whole chapter on the causes of famine? It's a funny book, but also illuminating.
DK
Ehrlich predicted mass starvation throughout the world including the west. He predicted that things would get worse rather than better. In fact the quoted figure of 15m is useless without a baseline figure from before for this very reason.
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/people/paul-ehrlich/
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005103
There ARE some moderate environmentalists out there. Let's not forget that.
Yes, anthony, but they are not the ones that are advocating punitive measures that will kill millions unnecessarily and seriously curb our freedoms in the name of a myth.
DK
Thanks Devil - I'll make sure O'Rourke is a belated Xmas gift........ to myself.
I'm presently reading Tony Benns diaries [2000-2007] - he seems even more dismissive of Blair's handling of Iraq than you are, a slight paradox perhaps ?
Tony Benn's one of those people who is occasionally right, but always for the wrong reasons, e.g. the 1975 EEC referendum.
I haven't read his diary ramblings, but I may actually get around to doing so...
DK
I wouldn't call AGW a 'myth'. It's a probability. So maybe, rather than taking extreme stances on both sides, some time should be given to a moderate stance.
We CAN assist the environment with new tech, if we have the will, without damaging our economy or taking away people's freedoms.
The commonsense answers are out there. Just in case the probability proves a certainty which was ignored simply because we disliked the wrong politics surrounding it.
I think that sentance makes sense.
Anthony,
I was going to answer a similar comment that you put on one of my IPCC posts; then, when I thought about it, I wanted to make it into a whole post, then I got distracted. Where, below, I'll put that I'll link to the sources, I already have in past posts, but I shall be writing a round-up post in the next couple of days.
So, here, basically, is what I want to say; I shall expand it into a post and add sources, but here is the position.
1) In order to prove AGW, the first thing that you have to prove is that the earth is warming. However, although there has been some warming since the temperature dip of the 70s, there as been no significant warming over the last century.
By "significant", I mean warming to an extent that is higher than that which might be caused by a rounding error.
2) In order to judge what might be a "normal" temperature for an entity the size of this planet, one needs to have a record running for a long time. In fact, if you are going to posit catastrophe for the human race, you should really have a record at least as long as human history.
We don't. The measuring stations that have been in place longest are those in the USA, the oldest of which have been in place since 1876.
Any older records are done using proxies, such as bristle cone pines, lake flora and fauna, ice cores, etc. The reliability of these sources is not high, and this reliability has not been enhanced by the fact that many of the scientists constructing the data have refused to release the raw data and processing algorithms that they used to produce the end temperature graphs.
More recent changes -- the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age -- are backed up by human documentary evidence (in the northern hemisphere only). However, it is worth noting that, although both these periods had more extreme temperatures than now, humans survived (and thrived in the MWP).
3) Let us say that you have proved unprecedented warming. Next one has to prove that atmospheric carbon correlates with surface temperatures.
It doesn't, and the Vostok ice-cores are not the only ones showing this. Again, I shall link to sources when I write the post.
There are those who say that CO2 leads to positive feedback effects but nothing else in nature does this: apart from anything else, were this the case, humans would never have evolved in the first place.
4) Let us say that you prove that CO2 is causing warming. To predict a result, you then need to determine the maximum temperature rise.
In the way in which CO2 affects radiation, one can actually measure what the rise might be (climate sensitivity) and the prediction is a maximum of 1.2 degrees C (again, I'll link to the source).
The problem is that -- once you scratch the surface -- none of the four points about have been proved in any way. Yes, there is a probability that they may be happening, but given that the only warming is shown by processed figures and not the raw surface station data (nor satellites) then you have a problem: in fact, the first link in the chain has not been proven at all, and so the rest don't even need to be looked at.
So, probabilities, off the top of my head?
The earth is warming: probability = 20%
CO2 is causing it = 20%
Manmade CO2 is having a significant effect = 1%
In my opinion, the probability that AGW is happening = 0.0005%.
The probability that it is "catastrophic" = 0.00000000000000000000000000001%.
Anyway, I'll write in the next couple of days, summarising and linking all this.
DK
I'll hold off my reply until your post, DK. Should be interesting.
I see the little green men in Mars have been pushing the hydrocarbon boat out a bit, too. I read - didn't save it - around a month ago that Mars is warming at the same infinitesimal rate as the earth.
A period of increased activity on the surface of the Sun, anyone?
All The Trouble in The World is my favourite book in the world. I've read it at least four times. I love it! Give War A Chance is also exceptionally wonderful, but is on a different issue.
I'll wager none of those quotes can be cited. I see the old canard claiming Charles Wurster wants everybody to die off -- a false claim when it was first made, but repeated by anti-environmental and corporate shills for over 30 years.
These quotes sound as bad as that notoriously inaccurate site, "Junk Science." I'll wager all of these quotes can be found there, and that would be evidence enough for rationalists that each quote is false.
Don't take my word for it. See if you can find these quotes in the publications named. See if there is any first-hand source that you'd regard as accurate if they said the same bad things about you.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home