The “Climategate” Criminals
Tags: Climategate, global warming.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Viscount Monckton lets ‘em have it:
This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.
The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years…
…these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up…
People seriously need to go to jail over this – and, yes, Al Gore should head the list of defendants. We have been the victim of a vast, criminal conspiracy to defraud the taxpayers and destroy freedom. All in the name of a myth called “anthropogenic global warming”. This is something we’ve long suspected was entirely bogus, and now we have the proof – they were fixing the data. Or, to put it more bluntly, they were just making sh** up as they went along. And this is what the environmentalist movement has always done since the publication of the mendacious Silent Spring.
I’ve had it with these con artists – and it is time we put them firmly in their place: a jail cell!
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
39 Responses to “The “Climategate” Criminals”
Caucus of Corruption
You know, I am pretty sure that if I were given access to the DoD mail servers, I would have little trouble sampling a 65 meg zip file out of the terabytes of dta that could “prove” that the moon landing is a hoax or that Saddam Hussein was the nicest guy ever.
Unless you got credible, peer-reviewed papers that disprove the greenhouse effect, I suggest you hold your horses here.
frogstupid
the lemings are coming the lemings are coming!!!!!
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
BWWWWWAAAAAA HA HA HA……….
Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”
Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”
After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.
The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”
That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”
In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”
……………………
“prove” that the moon landing is a hoax or that Saddam Hussein was the nicest guy ever.
maybe to a bunch of commie frogs in europe, that would be seen here as a big of hoax as obummer is.
You mean that greenhouse effect that is causing it to get colder, so that climate alarmists now say “climate change” instead of “global warming,” Frenchie?
The greenhouse effect is real. CO2 released from Mankind that is making it worse is BS. And those emails and docs show that the issue was being manufactured and that people with views that didn’t conform were forced out.
frenchstudent – it is beyond dispute that the earth warmed & cooled many times…before man.
and it may well be that we are in another natural warming period.
but it’s arrogant & presumptious to conclude man can effect this (natural)cycle either way. given the known historical record, AGW is anti-scientific.
again tho, good stewardship of God’s creation is a true conservative value. and the govt does have a role in environmental quality like clean air & water, hazmat, etc.
having said that,
“it’s arrogant & presumptious to conclude man can effect this …”-Ohioorrin
I must disagree, mankind can and does have a massive effect on the planet these days. Just the fact of population growth,
1900 – 1.5 billion
1960 – 3.0 billion
2009 – 6.0 billion
(approximate numbers)
gives one pause. Somethings got to give, the combination of ever increasing population and insaitable consumerism is laying waste to this planet.
As far as the leaked e-mails, I just view that as a minor bump in the ongoing studies that point to the obvious, that we humans are messing up the planet big time and not just temperature wise.
And Ohioorin, if you are depending on the idea of a God that won’t permit bad things to happen to his creations(the planet and his pet, Man), then you are irrational. Get a grip, there is no god, we have to muddle through this ourselves. BTW, there is no Santa, no Easter Bunny and no Great Pumpkin in case you were wondering.
canuk
I must disagree, mankind can and does have a massive effect on the planet these days. Just the fact of population growth,
HORSE CRAP……..
ONE volcanic eruption puts more c02, sulfer and particulate in the atmosphere than all of mankind since the beginning of GOD’s CREATION.
Not even taking in solar activity and solar winds.
no wonder you are quasi commies and soon to be muslems.
Meanwhile, the ever clueless ObowMao has made the claim today that we have moved “one step closer” to a global solution.
“US President Barack Obama said Tuesday the world has moved “one step closer” to a “strong operational agreement” on climate change at next month’s Copenhagen summit after his talks with Indian and Chinese leaders.”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=TX-PAR-MWN76&show_article=1
Is this President this out of touch that he makes this type of proclamation so quickly after the news of how all this climate change stuff has been manipulated? Is he this out of touch with sanity, or is this just something above his pay grade?
If nothing else, you would think his advisers would have him hold off on making this noise till after the story has died down a little.
That suit looks emptier and emptier.
BTW, I love how those who disagree with what kind of conspiracy picture this paints on the global warming front are crying foul because of the illegal aspects of this being released. Never mind that countless dollars have been pumped into this issue and many have become very wealthy because of this fraud. No, the issue needs to be that the person who released this information should go to jail because the fraud has been exposed. Shoot the messenger, the typical liberal response to news they don’t like getting out.
canuck – a recent UN environmental rpt stated the global cattle & swine herds emit more greenhouse gasses (plus ammonia) than all forms of transport COMBINED.
u misunderstand stewardship. man is responsible to exercise good caretaking of God’s creation.
that’s why I note that it is a true conservative value.
I’ve heard many such excuses from anthropogenic global warming theory supporters saying that this isn’t all that important, that its credibility is questionable, etc. But I firmly disagree, for I find this to be incredibly revealing of the hypocrisy of many supporters which they themselves perhaps are not aware.
For example, many people say that this is just one instance of corruption, and that it does not disprove the theory as a whole. Scientifically speaking, this is correct, but it is forgetting some very important facts. First, this kind of blasphemy could never have happened if these “scientists” had properly released their raw data. If fellow scientists cannot look at that data, as is the case with these studies and several others, then no honest peer review can occur. And peer review is very important to the scientific community.
Second, although there have been “conspiracy theories” going on for years about how those against modern global warming theory are purposefully falsifying data and are being paid for by big oil/etc., it was those on the side supporting it that have been found to deceptively hide data, at least in this instance. Therefore, it definitely damages the credibility of those who say people who oppose global warming theory have an agenda.
Goat
It is THEORY…NOT science.
Science is provable, reproducible and an undisputed fact.
IE gravity, and electricity.Boyle s Kirchhoff and Ohms “LAWS” one segment of “scientists” using computer “models” with no substantiated proof is FRAUD.
Like 00 said pig and cow farts!!!!!
The phasing out of R-12 and R-22 is another fraud right up there with this whole AGW SCAM!
Ponzi, and PT Barnum would have been proud.
Canuck,
How does one mess up the planet? What is the “normal” condition of our planet? You want to preserve a forest? What for? Once upon a time, it wasn’t there; now it is; at some future point, it won’t be. The natural world – of which we and our actions are a part – is in a state of constant flux. There is no stasis and there never will be. The proper view is that of OO – we are to be stewards…and stewards use what is given them to use.
As for this being a bump – my friend, its more than that: it is the proof-positive we’ve needed for ten years that AGW is a complete hoax. We thought we’d have to wait 10 or 15 years for the proof to just happen (ie, no global warming actually happening) – this just gave us a short cut.
Add this to the stories of famine, global cooling and other environmentalist fantasies. It isn’t true – it never was true – it was never possible that it was true…it was a lie cooked up out of whole cloth by people with an agenda.
“cattle & swine herds emit more greenhouse gasses (plus ammonia) than all forms of transport COMBINED.” – Ohioorin
These herds are the doings of man.
“You want to preserve a forest? What for?” Mark
Mark, Mark, Mark, listen to yourself. So I guess efforts to prevent the destruction of the Amazon is pointless. That’s the way you think. Sure glad you are not in a position of power.
I hope you keep this blog going for at least another 5 years because by then you will have to eat your words. The proof will be so convincing that even you will admit to error.
RE: The proper view is that of OO – we are to be stewards…and stewards use what is given them to use.
Possibly, Mark. But one little thing you have remember about orrin, orrin wants to kill all, every existing cow and pig combined to “save” the planet…question being, what will he turn to next? Horses? Sheep? And then to birds? Then to elephants?
I wonder how interesting of a world it would be if we had none of these creatures for entertainment and food to eat?
The worst part about orrin, is that much of his agenda is turned toward elimination of the human species made in the image of our Creator.
You need to pray for Orrin.
canuck,
Proof of what? You think that global warming is real? That we’re really running out of Amazon rain forest? That we’re all gonna die unless we follow the Goron? Please, keep this – and then have the guts to bring it up 5 years from now.
Anyways…
When you say “preserve” the Amazon you’re probably thinking in terms of “keep it just as it is” – which is dumb, because there is no “just as it is”…its always changing; all things filled with life – like the Amazon – are always changing. And, eventually, no matter what you do, the Amazon won’t be there anymore – ever heard of “plate tectonics”?
We are to use what we have – wisely, but use it.
observer20: For example, many people say that this is just one instance of corruption, and that it does not disprove the theory as a whole.
Actually, I don’t know of many people that would concede any corruption occurred.
Second, although there have been “conspiracy theories” going on for years about how those against modern global warming theory are purposefully falsifying data and are being paid for by big oil/etc., it was those on the side supporting it that have been found to deceptively hide data, at least in this instance.
Again, there is no evidence of deceptively hiding data, only suggestions.
But let’s assume for a moment that everything you say and then some is true. In other words, let’s assume that AGW is complete, utter nonsense. So what? Does that negate the fact that we are spending multiple hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign oil? Does that negate the fact that continuing to do so is precarious from a national security standpoint? Does that negate the fact that a concerted effort to improve energy efficiency would be highly cost-effective, not to mention good for the economy? Does that negate the fact that mining and burning coal is profoundly unhealthy? Does that negate the fact that some forms of renewable energy are already cost-competitive, and others show every indication of being so as well if they can get to scale? Does that negate the fact that most of the rest of the world is aggressively pursuing renewable energy, so the longer we drag our feet the lower the payoff for us? It’s not all about climate change. And IMO, any effort to make it so borders on criminal itself.
And frankly, I never believed that even if it were only about the science, no matter how compelling, that anyone would do much about it anyway — a point I’ve made repeatedly for years now. It’s the compelling economic and security reasons that will spur people to action. And as “luck” would have it (and again as I’ve pointed out repeatedly) there are several.
This not only exposes global warming as a lie, it serves to expose nearly every liberal issue as a lie. Healthcare for instance; does it need some reform, yes. Does it need a massive, one trillion dollar overhaul, hell no. War on Poverty; 40 years and poverty levels are the same. Tax cuts for the rich; every person that pays income taxes received a tax cut. Etc, etc, etc.
Every issue on the liberal agenda is fraudulently promoted as a “concern for the planet or the people”, all in an effort to centralize control, redistribute wealth, and retain power.
ricorun,
And they will continue to be under scrutiny until they release their raw scientific data, right? That’s the main issue to me. Any person or group which is reluctant to share data in its entirety must have their motives called into question.
As for the latter half of your post, I agree that we shouldn’t stop searching for alternative fuels and sources of energy. There are several political reasons, after all, and we may actually need those technology some day. But this does not mean I support such things as a cap & trade tax or government reallocation of money toward projects cutting carbon emissions if those carbon emissions are truly not doing much. Nor do I think a world-government climate council should be created on this questionable data.
Ricorun,
Oh, puhleeese! They were clearly hiding and falsifying data. The only way they ever got the data to match the computer models was to fabricate and falsify – this isn’t a stand-alone story, you know? The actual scandal on the bogus data broke months ago…this is just the rock solid, only-a-blind-partisan-can-deny-it proof.
They use one lie to justify another lie …
Welcome to postmodernism, folks…
http://onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=781330
jeremiah,
They want us dead or enslaved – fortunately, the Truth has set us free…
Mark,
Yep, it’s a strange world the Left lives in, but not at all “new-thinking.”
It all springs from back then, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And then, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
And today, “Abortion is a vital tool against “climate change.”"
It has been one lie right after another ever since Eve partook of Satan’s lie. God said Eve should not eat, and God said we should not murder. And well, people have defied both and believed in Satan every-step of the way.
But we know that, we are not punished for Adam’s sin or we would not have the possibility of redemption.
So, the bloodthirsty death chants by those on the left and their cohorts at the UN bring back the same old adage – GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.
OK, I haven’t read any of the emails (Haven’t got the time nor can be bothered), but reading these comments I’ve gotta make one myself. first at neocon, “laws” are not proven, they are simply observed, and determined to be correct, perhaps someday they will be disproved. the only science in which anything can be proven is mathematics. every other field relies on observing and finding evidence, once a theory is built (you know, something which requires a lot of evidence to support it), people can then attempt to disprove it. understand? (god i hope so, bible thumpers are becoming a real pain in the scientific world).
at mark, yes the amazon will be gone someday, hell the whole earth will be gone one day. does this mean we should just get rid of it? something you dont seem to understand is that the entire earth is in a balance that has “evolved”, yeah, the earth would survive without the amazon, heck itd survive a nuclear war. doesn’t mean humans will.
at jerry, you really need to take some kind of logic class. the bible is not a science book.
RE: yes the amazon will be gone someday, hell the whole earth will be gone one day.
Yes, the Amazon and earth will all be gone one day, but it will be nothing that man has done, but by the hand of its Creator. He’s gonna destroy it all.
RE: the bible is not a science book.
Oh really?
Well, good luck with that.
Mark, that there would be your biggest problem in any scientific policy debate. your side of the isle has been taken over by loonies like jerry. people like palin who believe the earth is 6000 years old, people like jerry who think god will protect the earth. really, if you wanna have your side inject a little scientific policy, hide those people.
I never seen anybody crazier than you left-wingers, pelirrojo. Regular lunatics, ya know?
You jump up and down when you blow a fart in the water and it makes a bubble and then say you “made a discovery”.
Yet you do not give credit or thanks to God for the beauty that He has created for you here on this earth in the mountains, the flowers, and the streams…the flowers, the bees, butterflies, and all sorts of creatures. But most importantly for sending His Son Jesus Christ to die for your pardon.
You’re gonna answer to big time.
It’s “aisle” you illiterate Lefty……..My “side of the isle” would be my “side of the island”.
If the AGW hoax had merely been a matter of getting a few people upset, it would be different. But billions of dollars have been sent down this rathole, and you can bet that there were scammers waiting there to collect it.
Al Gore has personally made millions off this scam and owns a large share of a company that would make billions if the cap and trade boondoggle goes through. (Hey, somebody’s got to do that
trding’ and they aren’t going to do it for free.)
And gee, how compelling it is to just list population growth. So? Will the combined weight of all these people crush the planet? Maybe compress it down so we are closer to those “millions of degrees” of heat the Science Guy, Gore, recently described?
Also, I love the claim that mankind just INVENTED livestock. Good one, canuck. Who knew that the existence of these mammals is really “..the doings of man…”? I’m starting to think the educational system in Canada is about as good as the health care system.
Tip: In south central Alberta there is a really interesting visitor center where you can see how aboriginals slaughtered pre-domesticated ruminants by chasing them over cliffs. Maybe you can elaborate on just which animals were “..the doings of man…” and which were here all along but just not domesticated. Accompany this no doubt fascinating lecture with data on the NUMBERS of these pre-domesticated critters, vis-a-vis their numbers today. Should be easy, you knowing so much about the subject….
BTW, the Left does have a plan to address cow farts. They have repeatedly tried to pass legislation to tax a certain amount per cow in any herd over a predetermined size, claiming the money would offset the damage done by the methane released. I guess when the Beatles sang “They’ll even tax the air you breathe…” they didn’t realize they’d also try to tax the air you don’t wanna…….
Amazona, how about you think for a second? if there are too many people then they take up more land to live, thus there is less land to farm, now here’s a really tricky one for you, what does this result in? perhaps (hey, you’re smarter than me, and maybe I’m wrong) there’s less food to feed people. now here’s an even trickier one for you, what happens when there’s not enough food for everyone? widespread famine. now as i say, you’re the all wonderful right winger who is so insanely smart she doesnt need to respond to lefties (its a given they’re wrong, right?), maybe I’m wrong. or perhaps jerry is right and god will just provide all we need (again, the little dangers of allowing religion to rule politics).
Does Sarah Palin really believe the earth is only 6000 years old? Really? She said this?
And if she did, would that have an impact on her ability to balance the budget, trim government waste, engage in international diplomacy, etc? How?
Please expound on an evident conviction that adopting a religious belief that Jesus was a black man who was killed only to illustrate the inherent racism and untrustworthiness of white Europeans would have less influence on a president’s worldview and handling of domestic issues such as race relations than, say, a theologically-based disagreement with geology and anthropology.
We live in a world with over 1600 denominations of Christianity alone, several different sects of Islam, plus a whole slew of other religious beliefs, and it seems to me that if a religion is based on personal responsibility, love and tolerance for all, and personal redemption, it is irrelevant to governance. However, a religion based on a belief that a whole segment of humnanity is inherently inferior, while another is superior, based on skin color, seems to me to be far more alarming, just as a belief that a religion has a divine mandate to kill all who do not share it would be.
I don’t see you complaining about having a president who was brought up in the latter faith and who later converted to the next-to-last one described, and a lot of people think either of those two religious orientations, much less a combination of the two, has a much greater potential downside than just questioning the age of the earth.
rojo, I’d be willing to give you credit for intelligence if you would just give me a chance, but wow, you go out of your way to make it very very difficult.
Your ‘reasoning’ is just so limited. For example, it depends heavily on a belief that no new technology will be developed. Here in the US we have seen the amount of food produced rise dramatically, especially when compared to the number of people it takes to produce it. (Go ahead, look it up—how many farmers in, say, 1900, produced how much food in the US, and how many people produce how much now, 109 years later. We’ll wait…….)
The world has the ability to produce so much food, right now, and that ability is vast, as new technology allows people to use solar power to pump water to crops, for example, or to protect livestock against parasites and disease.
You also seem to assume that population growth among various demographics will continue unchanged, but data show that the more industrialized and scientifically advanced a nation is, the lower its birthrate. Culturally and practically, more primitive cultures need to produce more children, to do the work and care for the elderly, etc.
Yours is a simplistic argument based on emotion, inaccurate and incomplete facts, and political bias, among other factors. Not to mention the gratiituous efforts at insult–another typical Lefty fallback position, you know. Not long ago, when a Lefty couldn’t respond with fact or reason, the super-intellectual response was that I am a stuck-up snob.
You don’t have to be smart to be aware, but you have to be AWARE to be aware. I was once a Lefty lemming, and I am proof it is possible to educate yourself, see where and how your minders are leading you in the wrong direction, and learn to think for yourself. It is even easier now, with the internet, as in minutes you can research the changing attitudes toward population growth, you can learn about old books like The Population Bomb and Silent Spring that scared the snot out of us years ago and have been thoroughly debunked since then. There is no excuse for being willfully ignorant, though political allegiance can be a reason.
Amazona, it is a very serious problem. balance a budget? fine. but when we get into issues like what children are taught and climate change, yeah, it becomes an issue when they decide that “science” is just “whatever story you want to believe in”.
amazona, yes technology allows for greater food production but that will always be limited. look at the current birth rates. the earth will be well and truly over populated in just a few more decades. As for declining birth rates, you’re right it is happening, although you will see on this very blog that mark is advocating an INCREASE in birth rates. calling countries where the birth rates declines “dying” countries. I’m not calling you a stuck up snob, I’ve no idea, but you continue to call peoples positions “emotion based”, while your positions are exactly that. the left as a general rule tends to use hard facts, eg science to determine policy.
climate change – based on science.
population rate – based on science.
evolution – based on science.
climate change – based on
science.LIES and B.S.population rate – based on
science.census counts.evolution – based on
science.FANTASY and B.S.Red, climate change itself is based on nothing—-it just happens. It is CAUSED by things, such as solar activity, but it is not based on anything.
The THEORY that global warming, or climate change, is caused by human actions is based on the claims of some scientists, far from all, who refuse to follow standard scientific procedures in opening up their data and their procedures for other scientists to try to duplicate.
There is abundant evidence that these scientists worked backward, developing a conclusion first and then concocting theories to ‘prove’ their conclusions.
The population number is scientific, if you count math as a science—that is, people are counted and that is how we know how many there are. The theories of how fast populations will grow, and why, and what that may mean, are far from uniform. There is no one single scientifically proven theory regarding how many people the planet can safely tolerate, or even on how many people will be on the planet at any given time. There are lots of theories, many of them conflicting, and it is not science to just pick the one you like and say “That’s it, that’s the theory that is right”.
Evolution—tougher. There is abundant evidence of the evolution of many species. There is no doubt or question about that. But the argument comes in when we talk about the ORIGIN of those species. Yes, there is scientific THEORY that all life was an accidental confluence of various conditions which spontaneously erupted into life, and that this very primitive form of life, this single-celled creature, then somehow evolved into the vast variety of life forms we see now.
And there are scientists who do not accept that, and who find no coherent scientific pathway between single cells and mankind, or between one species and another. These scientists, highly respected in their fields, have THEORIES which depend on what is called Intelligent Design. That is, the theory that while some degree of evolution is clear, in some species, the origins of those species were their creation by a superior power or presence.
At this point, religion enters the picture, as different religions attribute their own concept of God to this higher power, but in general the concept of Intelligent Design is shared by many many scientists.
Again, it is not science to just cherry-pick one theory out of dozens and announce that THIS theory is the only scientifically proven one.
The most attractive ‘answer’, to you, is not automatically the correct one. It’s just the one that meets your personal emotional needs.
And for the most part, belief in man-caused climate change and the Big Bang are as much belief systems as any organized religion. They depend on faith and a belief that one has been given, for some reason, access to a higher truth.
How many people will it take to become “overpopulated”?
Can you agree that this number would have been a lot smaller a century ago, when we produced less food and had access to fewer natural resources?
If you agree with that, then it is logical to agree that any definition of “overpopulation” will depend heavily on the technology of that time.
I live in Wyoming, which only recently arrived at a statewide population of just over half a million people. For the entire state, you understand. We do not measure our population in number of people per square mile, but in number of square miles per person.
To me, Tokyo and Hong Kong would be grossly “overpopulated”. So would New York City. But the people who live there seem to find it quite acceptable. “Overpopulation” is very very subjective.
And another question is, what do you suggest we do about it? Do you agree with that Obama czar who has advocated mandatory sterilization, even to the point of not letting people know they are being sterilized? And if so, who gets to decide who reproduces and who doesn’t?
Killing unborn children your answer? Newborns who aren’t “perfect”? Who gets to make THOSE decisions?
How about a cutoff date for life? Pick a number—when you’re 16, 60 sounds pretty old, so let’s say 60. That’s it, say your goodbyes, it’s off to Soylent Greenland for you. (Not a popular cutoff age for 59-year-olds, but like wealth,the bar always moves depending on where YOU are.)
How about the unproductive? If we are going to artificially limit population, why not get rid of the mooches and layabouts? We could have a government agency determine an acceptable level of productivity, and if you fall below that, it’s the pill machine for you.
And what is productive? Are art and music productive? Does a song feed a family?
Sounds like the Eligibility Police would be pretty busy.
RE: if there are too many people then they take up more land to live, thus there is less land to farm, now here’s a really tricky one for you, what does this result in?
pelirrojo,
I don’t think that that will ever happen, at least not at the present rate. The only way we could outpace the natural progression of the population is through allowing multitudes of immigrants from other countries to move in. Too, immigration is unhealthy for the cultural climate, and we’ve seen how this has played out so far for America. Multiculturalism does not bode well for our society, as acceptance of polytheism creates division as is actually what has divided us.
perhaps there’s less food to feed people.
The same point as before. That’s not going to happen. Take the gruesome picture at the number of grizzly murders each day of the unborn just here in the U.S. 4,000, and in a year’s time, that soon adds up to over a million. There’s one person born every 7 seconds, and there’s one to detract from that by abortion every 24 seconds, but that number could rise to equal if it hasn’t already surpassed that number if the Obama “healthcare” bill is passed. Combine in those numbers with the one person that also dies 22 seconds from alcohol related causes, add in also the number of people that die from natural death (old age), plus drug related deaths and murders with weapons, and the number of deaths really adds up. Worldwide it’s somewhere around 24,000,000 people per day.
So, in reality, there’s less space being occupied the more murder that is taking place. Which doesn’t bode well for a nation.
You can make up a lot of excuses as for your desire to murder, but at the end of the day they are just that, excuses. And excuses to commit a crime to top it all off.
perhaps jerry is right and god will just provide all we need (again, the little dangers of allowing religion to rule politics).
God will provide our needs, as long as you put your trust in Him and strive to keep His commandments. If you don’t do that, then you can’t expect to be blessed. Sooner or later, however, you’re going to meet up with the same fate that you desire for others if you continue in the mindset that “more people” is “bad for the planet.”
amazona, overpopulation was never my point. i simply made a small comment. in anycase, no, i would never ever want people killed. I completely an utterly oppose any sort of state execution, tends to be your side that wants it (eg jerry has suggested that every gay person be hung). and yes, it would heavily depend on the technology at the time.
now getting back to my original point. You on the right seem to have a serious issue with what a “theory” is, and what a “proof” is. in all sciences except mathematics (yes, its a science, well depending who you ask), nothing is truly proven. something is only called a theory once it has so much evidence supporting it that it appears to be true (thus the reason “intelligent design” is not a theory, there’s no evidence).
pelirrojo,
I don’t go on theories, I go on facts. That there is a ‘Creator’ is a hard fact of reality, and I have the rock-solid evidence to back it up. You do a little traveling and then get back to me after you have done some deep-sea fishing out on the high seas, and after you have latched into a few marlin and swordfish. And from there head back inland and head to Alaska for half a day moose-hunting, and half a day Salmon fishing. And from there head down to the Amazon into the wilds of the jungle and see how many amphibians, bees, butterflies and reptiles you can identify along with plants, trees, and flowers you can identify for me, and from there head back up to Colorado to the Yellowstone for a little cutthroat trout fishing and elk hunting, and from there down to Mississippi for a little “noodling” in the river for those brute flatheads. And still yet, from there, head on over to the great lakes for a little northern pike fishing, and from there to New Zealand to fish for those lightning rainbows and bull trout. And from there, head back over to Manitoba or Saskatchewan for a week of stalking w/bow and arrow in hand those elusive giant whitetail bucks. Then head over to Kentucky for some wild boar hunting, then head over to West Virgina for a bear chase…then, head back out West again for a little mule deer hunting, then head back east again to Maine in the Spring for a spring gobbler hunt, then back South again to Alabama for a little duck-hunting, then back North to Montana for some pheasant hunting.
That should be enough to keep you busy for a while, at least for two years anyway, possibly three years…then after that, if you say “there is no Creator” then I’ll show you more proof, the Word of the One who created all the creatures that you just had the fortune to catch and identify, and all the beautiful mountain, oceans, prairie lands, and woodlands that you got to witness.