Global Warming is simply the latest scare fad to descend upon the easily excitable.
For many years fearful Democrats agonized over the growth of the world's population. Catastrophe loomed in the form of reproduction. There was a crisis of reproduction underway and, according to Democrats, it would lead us all to ruin.
Thomas Malthus, the Scottish economist got this ball rolling in 1798 when he concluded the Earth could not support the population that would soon inhabit it. Our existence, he claimed, was limited by the Earth's agricultural productivity. We would, he said, run out of food. That was 1798.
Why do these dire proclamations emerge at the end of centuries? What is it about these closing moments that drives people to conjure the most imaginative fantasies? Y2K, anyone? Better known as the Computer Programmer's Full Employment and Annuity Act.
A quick review of the Population Doomsday scenario reviews many interesting comparisons with the current hysterical obsession with Climate.
The fear-mongers of today depend on the same terms as those who peddled former mass delusions to spread their message and its goal of terrorizing the mentally unprepared.
A favorite horror-story masquerading as a sane assessment of the purported debacle awaiting humankind, and published in 1960, is titled:
People!
Its subtitle is:
What Danger Does Mankind Face That Is Greater Than The H-Bomb?
Author: William Vogt.
The deathless phrases of fear always arise:
"It is not at all certain that we not have reached the irreversible Point Of No Return."
Point of no return. You can't sell a disaster story without alerting the Chicken Littles that the world is soon to pass that infamous point.
Followed by:
"Ghastly famines are a virtual certainty. Perhaps nothing less will shake our leaders out of their timidity and complacency."
Yeah, baby.
In 1950 the world's population was 2.5 billion. It probably hit 3 billion by the time Vogt published his rant. The population of the US, according to the Population clock at the 1964-65 NY World's Fair, hit 200 million while the fair was running.
Apparently, in defiance of the supposedly inevitable consequences laid out by screwballs like Malthus and more recently, Vogt, humans went on a reproductive binge. Today the population of Planet Earth is 6.5 billion. Of that total, 301 million are Americans.
Has anyone noticed that living conditions are improving for a billion-plus Chinese and also improving for the billion-plus in India?
Let's see. What other verbiage was lifted from the Population Bombers by the idea-stealing Global Warming plagiarists?
"We cannot afford the luxury of waiting for someone else to act. If we have any love for this Earth and for the creatures who inhabit it, if we are concerned about our children's future, or even our own later years, it is we who must act. Not next week, nor tomorrow. Tonight! Today!
And here we are 47 years later, with billions more of us going about our daily nonsense, fatter than ever and with enough spare time on our hands to become absorbed in yet another mass delusion of no consequence.
What does it all mean? It means that Democrats want to limit human inventiveness and replace it with government controls. It is typical liberal condescension. Convince the people there is a problem that does not exist, then pretend to save them from their folly.
The strategy says humans are too dumb to meet life's challenges. It says they need protection instead of ingenuity and inventiveness.
Malthus and Vogt said food would become scarce and famine commonplace. Let's see. Where did such misfortune occur?
Ah. It happened in communist countries. North Korea. It happens in countries controlled by dictators. Food supplies are barely adequate in Cuba. Food is running short in Zimbabwe. In parts of Africa -- Darfur and other primitive territories controlled by murderous thugs -- there is little food.
Nowhere is food in short supply due to agricultural limitations. Food problems only arise when despots, thugs, martinets, and dictators grab the reins of power.
Global Warming? So what if the atmosphere is warming a bit? So what?
Maybe Greenland will become one of Earth's breadbaskets. Maybe melting ice will provide a source of fresh water desperately needed all across the African continent.
Maybe the extra carbon in the air will lead to a vast expansion of the world's leafy tree population. Trees consume carbon dioxide like humans consume oxygen.
Anyway, the headline on the back cover of Vogt's population-bomb book says:
"No More Room Left On Earth."
Followed by:
"If our population had grown since the beginning of the Christian era at the rate is has during the last hundred years, FOR EVERY HUMAN BEING NOW ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH THERE WOULD BE A MILLION MORE."
Finally:
"At this rate, predicts noted ecologist and population control expert, William Vogt, we will, within a few centuries, exhaust the physical limits of our world. At that point the population density will be one person per square foot and we will have easten our way donw through the granite and basalt beneath our feet. We will have literally consumed the earth and there will be nothing left for humanity except to devour itself."
Okay. The future lies in cannibalism. Let's call on Jonathan Swift and hold public readings of "A Modest Proposal."
Democratic Party goals seem to get some of their drive from a desire to limit the number of humans on Earth.
The population problem? Well. Dems prefer abortion to famine and widespread starvation.
Global Warming? Actually, the solution is the same. In essence, Dems have concluded there are just too damn many of us.
More people = more cars, trucks, planes, ships, roads, buses, subways, power generation, waste production, etc, etc.
However, NOT ONE idea in the Dems answer book offsets the simple fact that MORE PEOPLE = MORE ENERGY DEMAND.
It's that simple. There is only ONE solution to the rising production and consumption of energy and everything pertaining to energy.
The ONLY path to lowering energy use is one that features a world with fewer people living in it.
Or. We could take our cue from the cultures on Earth today that use the least energy. Mainly, that is the culture of islam. The muslims use very little energy. They have little need for it, giving up most human pursuits to live a koranic life of misery and deprivation.
Based on the goals of Dems, it's clear they want to reduce the world's population by any available means. Claiming the reduction of energy use is their goal is a false claim. That goal is unobtainable -- unless the number of people on Earth declines.
It is clear muslims embrace the population reduction goals that appeal to Dems. That is, muslims will gladly give us the choice between conversion to islam or death.
Of course converting to islam and living an islamic life is itself a form of living death.
If the nations of the world were to install islamic theocracies as replacements to their current governments, we would see a decline of energy use worldwide. So maybe that's the answer Dems seek. The rise of the global caliphate.
It's all about taxes. Could it be any easier to pick the pockets of gullible citizens?
From Canada:
Quebec introduces carbon tax, Canada CEOs urge more
Mon Oct 1, 2007 6:39 PM BST
TORONTO, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Quebec province slapped the country's first carbon tax on energy firms on Monday, as Canadian business leaders urged "environmental taxation" to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions.
The tax, proposed more than a year ago, is expected to raise C$200 million ($202 million) a year to fund the province's plans to reduce emissions.
It includes a per-litre levy of 0.8 Canadian cent for gasoline, 0.9 Canadian cent for diesel fuel, 0.96 Canadian cent for light heating oil, and C$8 a tonne for coal.
It wasn't immediately known whether the oil companies, including Petro-Canada (PCA.TO: Quote, Profile , Research) and Imperial Oil (IMO.TO: Quote, Profile , Research), would pass along the cost to consumers.
Separately, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives said Canada should become "an energy and environmental superpower," and suggested higher energy prices to help cut emissions, the Globe and Mail newspaper reported on Monday.
Since 1990, greenhouse-gas emissions in Canada, a net exporter of energy, have risen more than in any other leading industrialized country, data submitted by the Group of Eight rich nations to the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat shows.
Quebec has pledged to meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
Canada has signed on to the agreement, which calls for a 6-percent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2012, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that target is impossible to achieve.
Instead, the minority Conservative government aims to cut emissions from greenhouse gases -- the key contributor to climate change -- by 20 percent from current levels by 2020.
5 comments:
Is not!
Global Warming is simply the latest scare fad to descend upon the easily excitable.
For many years fearful Democrats agonized over the growth of the world's population. Catastrophe loomed in the form of reproduction. There was a crisis of reproduction underway and, according to Democrats, it would lead us all to ruin.
Thomas Malthus, the Scottish economist got this ball rolling in 1798 when he concluded the Earth could not support the population that would soon inhabit it. Our existence, he claimed, was limited by the Earth's agricultural productivity. We would, he said, run out of food. That was 1798.
Why do these dire proclamations emerge at the end of centuries? What is it about these closing moments that drives people to conjure the most imaginative fantasies? Y2K, anyone? Better known as the Computer Programmer's Full Employment and Annuity Act.
A quick review of the Population Doomsday scenario reviews many interesting comparisons with the current hysterical obsession with Climate.
The fear-mongers of today depend on the same terms as those who peddled former mass delusions to spread their message and its goal of terrorizing the mentally unprepared.
A favorite horror-story masquerading as a sane assessment of the purported debacle awaiting humankind, and published in 1960, is titled:
People!
Its subtitle is:
What Danger Does Mankind Face That Is Greater Than The H-Bomb?
Author: William Vogt.
The deathless phrases of fear always arise:
"It is not at all certain that we not have reached the irreversible Point Of No Return."
Point of no return. You can't sell a disaster story without alerting the Chicken Littles that the world is soon to pass that infamous point.
Followed by:
"Ghastly famines are a virtual certainty. Perhaps nothing less will shake our leaders out of their timidity and complacency."
Yeah, baby.
In 1950 the world's population was 2.5 billion. It probably hit 3 billion by the time Vogt published his rant. The population of the US, according to the Population clock at the 1964-65 NY World's Fair, hit 200 million while the fair was running.
Apparently, in defiance of the supposedly inevitable consequences laid out by screwballs like Malthus and more recently, Vogt, humans went on a reproductive binge. Today the population of Planet Earth is 6.5 billion. Of that total, 301 million are Americans.
Has anyone noticed that living conditions are improving for a billion-plus Chinese and also improving for the billion-plus in India?
Let's see. What other verbiage was lifted from the Population Bombers by the idea-stealing Global Warming plagiarists?
"We cannot afford the luxury of waiting for someone else to act. If we have any love for this Earth and for the creatures who inhabit it, if we are concerned about our children's future, or even our own later years, it is we who must act. Not next week, nor tomorrow. Tonight! Today!
And here we are 47 years later, with billions more of us going about our daily nonsense, fatter than ever and with enough spare time on our hands to become absorbed in yet another mass delusion of no consequence.
What does it all mean? It means that Democrats want to limit human inventiveness and replace it with government controls. It is typical liberal condescension. Convince the people there is a problem that does not exist, then pretend to save them from their folly.
The strategy says humans are too dumb to meet life's challenges. It says they need protection instead of ingenuity and inventiveness.
Malthus and Vogt said food would become scarce and famine commonplace. Let's see. Where did such misfortune occur?
Ah. It happened in communist countries. North Korea. It happens in countries controlled by dictators. Food supplies are barely adequate in Cuba. Food is running short in Zimbabwe. In parts of Africa -- Darfur and other primitive territories controlled by murderous thugs -- there is little food.
Nowhere is food in short supply due to agricultural limitations. Food problems only arise when despots, thugs, martinets, and dictators grab the reins of power.
Global Warming? So what if the atmosphere is warming a bit? So what?
Maybe Greenland will become one of Earth's breadbaskets. Maybe melting ice will provide a source of fresh water desperately needed all across the African continent.
Maybe the extra carbon in the air will lead to a vast expansion of the world's leafy tree population. Trees consume carbon dioxide like humans consume oxygen.
Anyway, the headline on the back cover of Vogt's population-bomb book says:
"No More Room Left On Earth."
Followed by:
"If our population had grown since the beginning of the Christian era at the rate is has during the last hundred years, FOR EVERY HUMAN BEING NOW ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH THERE WOULD BE A MILLION MORE."
Finally:
"At this rate, predicts noted ecologist and population control expert, William Vogt, we will, within a few centuries, exhaust the physical limits of our world. At that point the population density will be one person per square foot and we will have easten our way donw through the granite and basalt beneath our feet. We will have literally consumed the earth and there will be nothing left for humanity except to devour itself."
Okay. The future lies in cannibalism. Let's call on Jonathan Swift and hold public readings of "A Modest Proposal."
Democratic Party goals seem to get some of their drive from a desire to limit the number of humans on Earth.
The population problem? Well. Dems prefer abortion to famine and widespread starvation.
Global Warming? Actually, the solution is the same. In essence, Dems have concluded there are just too damn many of us.
More people = more cars, trucks, planes, ships, roads, buses, subways, power generation, waste production, etc, etc.
However, NOT ONE idea in the Dems answer book offsets the simple fact that MORE PEOPLE = MORE ENERGY DEMAND.
It's that simple. There is only ONE solution to the rising production and consumption of energy and everything pertaining to energy.
The ONLY path to lowering energy use is one that features a world with fewer people living in it.
Or. We could take our cue from the cultures on Earth today that use the least energy. Mainly, that is the culture of islam. The muslims use very little energy. They have little need for it, giving up most human pursuits to live a koranic life of misery and deprivation.
Based on the goals of Dems, it's clear they want to reduce the world's population by any available means. Claiming the reduction of energy use is their goal is a false claim. That goal is unobtainable -- unless the number of people on Earth declines.
It is clear muslims embrace the population reduction goals that appeal to Dems. That is, muslims will gladly give us the choice between conversion to islam or death.
Of course converting to islam and living an islamic life is itself a form of living death.
If the nations of the world were to install islamic theocracies as replacements to their current governments, we would see a decline of energy use worldwide. So maybe that's the answer Dems seek. The rise of the global caliphate.
Now we're getting somewhere:
It's all about taxes. Could it be any easier to pick the pockets of gullible citizens?
From Canada:
Quebec introduces carbon tax, Canada CEOs urge more
Mon Oct 1, 2007 6:39 PM BST
TORONTO, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Quebec province slapped the country's first carbon tax on energy firms on Monday, as Canadian business leaders urged "environmental taxation" to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions.
The tax, proposed more than a year ago, is expected to raise C$200 million ($202 million) a year to fund the province's plans to reduce emissions.
It includes a per-litre levy of 0.8 Canadian cent for gasoline, 0.9 Canadian cent for diesel fuel, 0.96 Canadian cent for light heating oil, and C$8 a tonne for coal.
It wasn't immediately known whether the oil companies, including Petro-Canada (PCA.TO: Quote, Profile , Research) and Imperial Oil (IMO.TO: Quote, Profile , Research), would pass along the cost to consumers.
Separately, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives said Canada should become "an energy and environmental superpower," and suggested higher energy prices to help cut emissions, the Globe and Mail newspaper reported on Monday.
Since 1990, greenhouse-gas emissions in Canada, a net exporter of energy, have risen more than in any other leading industrialized country, data submitted by the Group of Eight rich nations to the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat shows.
Quebec has pledged to meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
Canada has signed on to the agreement, which calls for a 6-percent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2012, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that target is impossible to achieve.
Instead, the minority Conservative government aims to cut emissions from greenhouse gases -- the key contributor to climate change -- by 20 percent from current levels by 2020.
Nice to see you hear no_slappz, I really enjoy reading your posts (wherever they may appear) The liberals have a hell of a time refuting actual logic.
Post a Comment