• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Confirmed: global warming zealots hate people


rhonda15

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
3,544
I’ve always suspected this. There can be only one logical conclusion to the anthropogenic global warming campaign: eliminate human beings. Or, at least, reduce to a minimum their number on the planet.

Have you had the sneaking suspicion that climate change activists were seeking to suppress every possible life-enhancing human activity from a long hot bath to a long-haul flight to an exotic destination? Have you ever had the sense that they would actually prefer it if you just ceased to occupy space on the earth, using up – as you do – its precious resources to facilitate your own pestilential selfish existence? That, if they could, they would at least manage to deter you from reproducing? Well, here it is: this report from the LSE says it all.

Confirmed: global warming zealots hate people – Telegraph Blogs


'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.

'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change' - Telegraph

No surprise the George Soros funded and supported uber-elitest London School of Economics authored this study.
 


D

Deleted member 17573

How do you conclude that sensible population control equates to hating people?
 

rhonda15

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
3,544
How do you conclude that sensible population control equates to hating people?
because it is well known that many of these guys are eugenicists and love China's population policy and would like to see it introduced everywhere. You think they're gonna stop there?
 
D

Deleted member 17573

because it is well known that many of these guys are eugenicists and love China's population policy and would like to see it introduced everywhere. You think they're gonna stop there?
It's well known that the planet is heading for serious over-population and we are the only species doing the over-populating. We need to learn that simple lesson and start doing something about it - instead of attacking the messengers
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,961
I’ve always suspected this. There can be only one logical conclusion to the anthropogenic global warming campaign: eliminate human beings. Or, at least, reduce to a minimum their number on the planet.

Have you had the sneaking suspicion that climate change activists were seeking to suppress every possible life-enhancing human activity from a long hot bath to a long-haul flight to an exotic destination?
On the contrary, a reduced global population would actually increase the perception of each individual's value and the potential for each individual to do those life-affirming things without destroying the basis of all aspects of human life as climate change may threaten. I've always preferred being one 5 millionth of the Irish nation compared with less than one billionth of the Chinese nation, for example. Environmentalists uniformly believe that current global population growth is unsustainable or rather downright destructive, and provided population reduction is not coercive it is a desireable outcome. What's wrong with increasing sexual education, contraception, family planning? You might find some enviro-nutjobs who believe in less co-operative methods of population reduction but you can lump those with genocidal or fundamentalist fanatics and move on (quickly).
 

Malboury

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
369
On the contrary, a reduced global population would actually increase the perception of each individual's value and the potential for each individual to do those life-affirming things without destroying the basis of all aspects of human life as climate change may threaten. I've always preferred being one 5 millionth of the Irish nation compared with less than one billionth of the Chinese nation, for example. Environmentalists uniformly believe that current global population growth is unsustainable or rather downright destructive, and provided population reduction is not coercive it is a desireable outcome. What's wrong with increasing sexual education, contraception, family planning? You might find some enviro-nutjobs who believe in less co-operative methods of population reduction but you can lump those with genocidal or fundamentalist fanatics and move on (quickly).
All cogent points covered there. Good post.

Rhonda, out of interest, how many humans do you want to see on Earth? Surely there must be an upper limit to how many you want living here? Personally, I think 12 billion or so's probably a good upper limit, though we should probably cut back until we have the infrastructure and resources to support them.

Now if you want to start moving people off planet, I'm all for that. A Solar system of 30 billion humans would be fine; it just when we all cluster into one limited gravity well that the problems start. ;-)
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
819
Some of the stuff on this website lately is serious cack.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,055
If I want to read what the Daily Telegraph is saying about global warming, I will buy the newspaper.

However, I know that newspaper generally publishes only lies and half-truths on that topic, like the screed of that arch-idiot James Delingpole.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-delingpole-climate-change-denial#

So if someone is so lame-ass and stuck for subject matter as to use the Telegraph as a starting point for a discussion, then count me out. I have better things to do.
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,222
Jaysus, not another paranoid thread by Rhonda15 based on something in a rapid right wing UK newspaper. :roll:

Maybe we need a forum called "the Bin" for the endless conspiracy theory diarrhoea Rhonda and others come out with!
 

seenitallb4

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
197
Leaving all the ad hominum rubbish aside, there is an important question here- if it is the case that population reduction will combat climate change, should this be done by coercive means? How far can one legitimately go to control population?
 

southwestkerry

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
4,229
Their is quiet a bit off this I do agree with Rhonda on their is plenty support for the theory off a sneaking regard to china's ruling force and their emissary's.
As a result I would not dismiss the ideas being touted as it only takes one mind to make a move and others would follow.
 

mazzington

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
380
because it is well known that many of these guys are eugenicists and love China's population policy and would like to see it introduced everywhere. You think they're gonna stop there?
it's also well known that Alex Jones pays you 12 cents for every post you make on this site.
 

Jethro

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
348
I’ve always suspected this. There can be only one logical conclusion to the anthropogenic global warming campaign: eliminate human beings. Or, at least, reduce to a minimum their number on the planet.

Have you had the sneaking suspicion that climate change activists were seeking to suppress every possible life-enhancing human activity from a long hot bath to a long-haul flight to an exotic destination? Have you ever had the sense that they would actually prefer it if you just ceased to occupy space on the earth, using up – as you do – its precious resources to facilitate your own pestilential selfish existence? That, if they could, they would at least manage to deter you from reproducing? Well, here it is: this report from the LSE says it all.

Confirmed: global warming zealots hate people – Telegraph Blogs


'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.

'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change' - Telegraph

No surprise the George Soros funded and supported uber-elitest London School of Economics authored this study.
The link to the LSE study is fairly limited. Overpopulation is generally, most severe in the world's poorest countries. How effective would doleing out condoms and sex education classes be to these people? Would they not rather sell on their condoms for food?

We can't put the cart before the horse. Even in Ireland in the 80's condoms were available but it is not like they were always used properly. Religion, lack of education, the need for status all worked in favour of having children. I just think that the poorest countries have a long way to go before the kind measures proposed will make any meaningful penetration (excuse pun).

This all comes back to my general feeling on climate change. It's far from the most serious problem facing the world and money spent on fighting AIDS, dirty water and restricted trade would advance our broader interest of human welfare far more.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

The link to the LSE study is fairly limited. Overpopulation is generally, most severe in the world's poorest countries. How effective would doleing out condoms and sex education classes be to these people? Would they not rather sell on their condoms for food?

We can't put the cart before the horse. Even in Ireland in the 80's condoms were available but it is not like they were always used properly. Religion, lack of education, the need for status all worked in favour of having children. I just think that the poorest countries have a long way to go before the kind measures proposed will make any meaningful penetration (excuse pun).

This all comes back to my general feeling on climate change. It's far from the most serious problem facing the world and money spent on fighting AIDS, dirty water and restricted trade would advance our broader interest of human welfare far more.
If you don't consider climate change a problem, fair enough. But you have to face up to the issue of overpopulation. Do you accept that the planet is a finite resource? If you do, the need for population control must be obvious.
 

jcdf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
3,778
Leaving all the ad hominum rubbish aside, there is an important question here- if it is the case that population reduction will combat climate change, should this be done by coercive means? How far can one legitimately go to control population?
No! Because the planet earth belongs to humanity not the other way round. Population can legitimately be controlled by offering people better choices than mass multiplication.
 

Marcos the black

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
18,708
How do you conclude that sensible population control equates to hating people?
Yeah, if all these people grew up to be FF'ers the world would be a much better place :p:p
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,908

Jethro

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
348
If you don't consider climate change a problem, fair enough. But you have to face up to the issue of overpopulation. Do you accept that the planet is a finite resource? If you do, the need for population control must be obvious.
Climate change is a problem with a straight carbon tax arguably the best solution. That way the market will find the most efficient method of reducing emissions.

Is the planet a finite resource? Possibly. But the 'world' includes the universe and the human mind, both of which we do not know the limits to. So we do not know what we will discover in the future. And it is human beings that are 'the ultimate resource' - most of the resources we have today eg. cars, computers, telecommunications are 90% human.

Looking back over time world income (which are our resources) has grown by approx 3% per year. Looking forward, no less than the IPCC's economists project that the world income will continue to grow by 1 to 3% to 2100 resulting in us being 5 to 11 times richer.

So in short, the world is not finite, humans add to the stock of resources in the world and we are nowhere near a resource crisis ( despite the current distractions on The Frontline discussion!!).
 

charley

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
1,247
we have the ability to feed the world but the resulting production would cut the prices paid for foodstuff so it will never be done.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top