  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
User login
Get Email Alerts!
Recent comments
- fk
Very funny!!!
Sad the
15 hours 11 min ago - Hey, how about we get rid of
16 hours 55 min ago - Love it retweeted, & shared.
17 hours 25 min ago - I hadn't even heard about
17 hours 49 min ago - Just in time for all you
20 hours 51 min ago - What I meant by the first
1 day 27 min ago - Of course, the rich are
1 day 2 hours ago - So, you shouldn't divide
1 day 16 hours ago - Horsecrap. The market moves
1 day 21 hours ago - Those tax hikes we had in
2 days 1 hour ago
Sponsored ad
News
- No sign of oil spill after Gulf platform fire
- Afghans Pull Money From Weakened Bank
- Officials Assess Damage From Blast in Gulf of Mexico
- Burger King sets sights overseas after $3.26B sale
- Hurricane Earl Nears Atlantic Coast
- Earl threatens East Coast with weekend pounding
- Line Umpires’ Job Is to See but Not Be Seen
Do Something!
Comments
You forgot to mention the
You forgot to mention the latest carbon reducing initiative.
So good for Mother Earth, it's a crime that it hasn't been mandated internationally.
Welcome to the world of the future.
Going to the restroom before
Going to the restroom before a flight to save weight; quite brilliant in its simplicity!
Take your brain out on the
Take your brain out on the next flight to save on another few picograms of carbon.
Heaven knows you won't need it.
Nah, trip to the restroom's
Nah, trip to the restroom's just fine!
Hi, Great cartoons and nice
Hi,
Great cartoons and nice animation. I would add more sounds for better impact.
The best,
Greg
I hate the way people push
I hate the way people push global warming like its such a threat especially when the earth has cooled by a degree in the last 10 years
Yet, glaciers continue to
Yet, glaciers continue to recede/melt, CO2 levels continue to rise, the Maldives continue to go underwater, precipitation continues to decline in the western US, among other things. There's no real argument over climate change towards a warming trend, just over how much of it is caused by human activity.
BASIC for understand who are
BASIC for understand who are the rulers of the world:
Antony Sutton "America's Secret Establishment"
Sorry to say that Obama
Sorry to say that Obama turned out to be worst than Bush. Aside of lying to his voters - he has approved sending 22,000 more soldiers to die in this fake war, given our money to the bankers, reinforced the patriot act….. So sad. We all need to wake up. We need more Ron Paul type of politicians.
Ever hear hear of Godwin's
Ever hear hear of Godwin's Law? In my days of using the internet I've seen Hitler compared to Bush, Obama, Reagan, Hillary Clinton, US domestic policy, liberal protesters, conservative protesters...but never climate change. I think it may be a first...congratulations.
Really, you almost had me there at the beginning. Usually, fake newsreels are used to highlight the nationalist, alarmist, single-minded propaganda commonplace in days past. I naturally figured this would be a spoof until I realized HOLY S*** THEY'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO EDUCATE ME ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. BTW, apparently it's now proper to call it "climate change" and not "global warming" because any positive or negative shift is apparently the effect of a warming atmosphere. Might help your case later when you have to argue down another record-breaking winter.
And... 150,000 deaths yearly? Can you prove it was climate change? Or are we just pretending that natural disasters didn't happen prior to the '70s, when this stuff all started?
maybe if we ignore it, it
maybe if we ignore it, it will go away....
I think Mark's analogy is
I think Mark's analogy is justified if it means that, just as the war against the Nazis, fighting global warming will be troublesome, but worth the effort.
The analogy's a bit over the
The analogy's a bit over the top, but it gets the point across.
Wow, gotta love how this topic gets them coming out of the woodwork!
This is what happens when people sleep through science classes in school.
I've died and gone to
I've died and gone to heaven!
Commenters digging through the global warming hype, actually contemplating the ramifications of rapid depopulation and drastic standard of living reductions?
And calling Mr. Fiore's analogy out as bloody terrible?
My faith in humanity is restored!
Perhaps they considered that a scientific theocracy mandating restriction of resources and depopulation of the 'wrong types of people' to save the planet and usher in a glorious new civilization was the national socialists' whole mandate.
We can only hope it isn't scientifically proven that Jews have a larger carbon footprint than non-Jews, or else Mr. Fiore'll be out there picketing for the 'Jewish business carbon equalization tax' to save us all.
"Scientific Theocracy"
"Scientific Theocracy" should be all that proves this bit of ridiculous faulty!
What about trusting the IPCC
What about trusting the IPCC so implicitly that you'd consent to living taxes (a.k.a. carbon taxes), forced urbanization, aggressive and overt population control, geoengineering, and (in all likelihood, if they suggested that it was 'good for the planet') sterilizing ReFlex76, without having read a single page of their research, doesn't mesh with the concept of "scientific theocracy".
Even the Mayan priests that collected tithes from the people to keep the sun rising didn't have it this good.
Heh, so the New World Order
Heh, so the New World Order has apparently been replaced by the IPCC! Gotta love how some people will believe that a department of the UN (yes, that UN; specifically, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) can wield that much power; a lot of people in Rwanda would have loved for that to be true.
They're all part of the same
They're all part of the same apparatus. The IPCC administration and UNFCCC research is fully funded by the 'NWO' heavies (through USAID, CIDA, USEPA and dozens of others). If you don't have time for the funding trail or you're looking for 'bloody obvious', you might want to take a gander at their org chart, or on whose land their headquarters is located.
The UN is perfectly capable of moving forward on any mandate they give a toot about.
Rwanda? Too many useless eaters. Why bother to intervene when the Hutus were taking care of the Tutsi population problem?
After all, according to ReFlex, overpopulation was the 'root cause' of all their problems anyway.
But these facts are irrelevant. You should be bristling at the proposed measures whether they come from the IPCC, the OPT, or Fox News.
NWO indeed! Even Rush
NWO indeed! Even Rush Limbaugh kept his distance from this "Black Helicopter" crowd! Most of us rational people see the NWO as an old pro-wrestling stable; "others" (wink) see them as reason to get more aluminum foil for their hats!
Oh, and overpopulation leading to overcrowding and less available farm land was indeed seen as at least one reason for the eventual clash between Hutus and Tutsis. Of course, this doesn't justify genocide, unless the foil hat fits!
> Most of us rational people
> Most of us rational people see the NWO as an old pro-wrestling stable; "others" (wink) see them as reason to get more aluminum foil for their hats!
If you don't care about evidence, what's the point in debating the matter?
> Oh, and overpopulation leading to overcrowding and less available farm land was indeed seen as at least one reason for the eventual clash between Hutus and Tutsis. Of course, this doesn't justify genocide, unless the foil hat fits!
Firstly, there are societies functioning perfectly well today with population densities many times higher than 1990's Rwanda. That being said, I acknowledge that many wars are resource-based and exacerbated by population growth.
As to the 'justification' of the Rwandan genocide, if the Hutus had limited the Tutsis to a one-child policy, sterilized offenders, appropriated Tutsi farmland to the state, encouraged abortion and birth control for Tutsis considering having even one child, and contaminated the Tutsi food and water supply with carcinogens, toxins, and agents to reduce sperm motility... you would consider that to be a more humane and appropriate way to conduct a genocide?
"Evidence" here being a list
"Evidence" here being a list of random international organizations with nowhere near the power conspiracy guy thinks they have.
Oh, and I'm sure that example of "humane genocide" is a reference to a specific nation (and at least some acknowledgment that overpopulation was at least partly responsible for the Rwanda event), though some aspects sound like more of the conspiracy fluff. I guess it takes a "special" kind of mind to talk about how to conduct "appropriate genocide"!
> ...list of random
> ...list of random international organizations with nowhere near the power...
They're 'random' because you don't know what they freakin' are.
And since virtually every nation on Earth has signed airtight agreements to conduct their affairs wholly, legally in compliance with these 'random organizations' under the umbrella of the UN, the ability of the 'random organizations' to mandate new laws just might be of some concern to those of us whose brains aren't happily flying around space wearing glasses.
As for the rest, perhaps I should make this more overt:
"Humane genocide" is what I am suggesting that you, ReFlex76, would consent to under the pretense of "saving the planet".
So now genocide is the same
So now genocide is the same as passing out condoms and birth control pills . . . the hole gets deeper!
At best, these organizations provide advice, leaving enforcement to nations that chose to comply; short of war, most nations won't agree to the loonier ideas unless they make a semblance of sense. Of course, I could be wrong, and they'll be sending out the Black Helicopters!
> most nations won't agree
> most nations won't agree to the loonier ideas unless they make a semblance of sense
I should point out that you're going to snip your clip, cut off your arms, and buy a whole new generation of 'green' crap because some guy (from an organization you claim has no influence whatsoever) tells you that 'science' wants you to do so.
If this is your 'semblance of sense', who needs the black helicopters?
There it is again, equating
There it is again, equating a vasectomy with amputation; sorry, no cigar!
Hey, if you're going to
Hey, if you're going to attack overreaching analogies, point yourself at the man who's comparing climate change hand wringing to appeasing the Nazis.
Let's see: one is mass
Let's see: one is mass death, the other is mass death . . . no reason to point!
Well then, with all these
Well then, with all these little inconsequential differences...
Mr. Fiore can use next week's toon to compare hold-outs on the H1N1 vaccine to the Nazis.
Hmmm, Jim Jones and his cult
Hmmm, Jim Jones and his cult sound like a better comparison here.
I consider "genocide" to be
I consider "genocide" to be the systematic elimination of a genus of people. It doesn't matter whether it's accomplished through war, or economic sanctions, or handing out lollipops and tax breaks as incentives for abortion.
When birthrates drop below 2.1 per couple, a nation begins to die.
When it drops below 1.7, it needs massive immigration to survive.
When it drops below 1.4, which is the case for the 'secular' populations of several European nations, historically, no society has ever survived more than a century.
When it drops below 1.1, such as in Russia, a nation has less than a century before its population is literally decimated.
Who needs 'black helicopters' (?) when one can simply hand out condoms and vasectomies, tell every Tom, Dick and ReFlex that they need to die off to save the world, and let them blithely exterminate themselves whilst dreaming about bopping Nicole Kidman in the UAE.
In case you hadn't noticed, the end result is exactly the same. Your genus. Dead.
As for more active measures coming for those who don't comply... we shall see. The OPT has been making noise recently about China being the 'model state' for population control. My worry is that the ReFlexes of the world won't balk at similar policies being implemented elsewhere. They're already using your tax dollars to fund 'family planning' (isn't that just the most beautiful Orwellian term) clinics far and wide across the third world.
So now responsible family
So now responsible family planning is the same as death squads, extermination camps, and actual mass murder . . . wow, I think magma is being reached!
Oh, and our genus, Homo, is quite safe with 6.8 billion and counting; way too many of those suffering from malnutrition courtesy of lack of family planning.
> responsible family
> responsible family planning
Defined as what?
Seriously. What does 'responsible family planning' look like to ReFlex?
> responsible family planning is the same as death squads...
My point wasn't to equate the two but rather to point out that (i) from a population standpoint, they accomplish the same thing, and (ii) unchecked, they are both extremely dangerous.
> wow, I think magma is being reached
The joke was old about 13 posts ago.
> way too many of those suffering from malnutrition
Here's an idea! Let's take the UN's 18 billion dollar operating budget for 2009 and use it to build 360 of the world's best schools, labs, and trade schools across Subsaharan Africa. We'll move funds from the 18 billion 2010 UN operating budget into an endowment that will keep the schools funded for eternity. In 2011, we'll set up another 360 schools. Or perhaps 36 world-class universities. Or perhaps 18 world-class hospitals.
Meanwhile, we'll take a third of the Pentagon's 663 billion 'on the books' military budget and buy everybody in Subsaharan Africa food for 2010.
Rinse, lather, repeat for 30 years, and whaddaya know, the sociological factors that caused 'burdensome' populations have evaporated. And now they're happily contributing to the massive world die-off that even the UN is predicting for 2030 and beyond.
Yup, condoms and birth
Yup, condoms and birth control pills (i.e. responsible family planning) is now dangerous . . . I guess now it's not so much digging now as swimming through the magma!
Here's a simple explanation of overpopulation: one person finds a loaf of bread satisfying; two people won't be as satisfied by that one loaf; three people may fight over that loaf; the more the not so merrier!
Oh, and that 2030 "die-off"? At that point, the world should hit 9 billion, the accepted maximum number that can be sustained on the most basic of levels by modern standards. Basic biology says that a population that exceeds its resource limits soon gets "limited" by ever nastier means! Once again, the problem isn't too few people, it's too many, way too many!
The people of Europe will eventually enjoy their lower populations as they find more to have by those who remain. Said Western European nations haven't fought each other in wars in over sixty years, around the time they got their population growth under control. Amazing how a blessing can be so hard to welcome!
Rather than crazy redistribution schemes, the solution is so simple: stop having so many kids! Resource-drained Africa is way over the limit with a population of almost one billion, no surprise war, starvation, and disease have become so common. As said, nature's methods of population control as much nastier!
Ideal world population of 1 billion: let's make it a reality! One visit to a urologist is all it takes!
I'm wasting my time arguing
I'm wasting my time arguing with you. It's like debating quantum physics with a sea turtle.
You ignore my counterpoints, spout Malthusian rhetoric so threadbare that I suspect you're doing it just to spite me, and you've now come back with your new personal low: "Basic biology says that a population that exceeds its resource limits soon gets limited by ever nastier means."
Really? You think?
I hadn't once considered this during the whole four weeks we've been debating this.
By gum! Here I was thinking this was a debate about the dynamics and abuses of population control and 'how much is too much', and your counterpoint is "Did you know that people need food to live?"
> Ideal world population of 1 billion: let's make it a reality!
Such a big, round and pretty number.
You can do your part. I certainly won't do mine.
Thanks for the debate, sir. Forum visitors will at least have a record of our arguments. They'll witness the pinnacle of ReFlexian post hoc logic: that "western European nations haven't fought each other in wars in over sixty years, around the time they got their population growth under control"--a postulation whose banality is exceeded only by that of your incessant 'digging into the magma' jokes.
Happy voluntarily removing your genes from the gene pool. Perhaps they should come up with an award for that. Name it after a famous naturalist.
So now condoms, birth
So now condoms, birth control pills, and general planned parenthood advice is "population control abuse" . . . that magma-digging suit must be made of some strong asbestos! Oooh, and proud to be irresponsible to boot!
Two samples:
France is an example of a nation that has embraced proper family planning; Niger has the highest rate of population growth at 7.1 children per woman. Now, where would most people rather live? (between these two, the choice should be very obvious!)
Regarding
Regarding overpopulation:
The weird thing - in my opinion - is that in America, for many many years, families were only having approximately 1.5 children (so the surveys said). The citizens were controlling births on their own (because they were smart, they didn't want to have more children than they could afford to send to college!). . . .
But then our politicians decided to import Illegal Immigrants (so the corporations could have cheap labor). Statistically speaking, these Illegal Immigrants have been responsible for most of the births (for MANY years now); Anchor Babies and all that!
What say U about those facts !!!
The graphic seems to imply
The graphic seems to imply Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg were not invaded at the same time France was. False.
Don't believe people when
Don't believe people when they claim the world is overpopulated. You could easily fit the world population on australia with about an acre each and still have space left over.
So far the studies that have claimed the carrying capacity of the earth is less than 10billion have mostly based their theories around the current unsustainable energy use in developed countries.
No oil company would want you to know this, but with our current technology we have absolutely no need to use fossil fuels. Not only could the most mentioned renewable energy sources of wind, wave, solar and tidal power meet our energy needs, but the rarely mentioned one, geothermal power, could meet our needs thousands of times over.
Shame on the engineers who gave in to bullying and sold their high-performance electric vehicle patents to oil companies.
http://www.thevenusproject.com
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912
While I like the energy
While I like the energy logic here, the population bit is questionable.
Where will the fresh water for these people come from?
The food?
Where will their sewage go?
"40 acres and a mule" was considered an injustice, I doubt people will settle long for one acre cages.
Overpopulation can easily be seen as the root of most of the world's current problems. It may be idealistic, but getting the world's population down to 2 billion, perhaps 1 billion would be best. Europe and Japan's declining populations show the way, just stop having so many kids, if you have them at all!
Type 5 Thorium pebble bed
Type 5 Thorium pebble bed reactors used to not only power desalination plants but also the cities that desperately need the energy. One needs to raise the energy flux density, educational and economic situation of the planet's population to achieve critical mass on creating advancement's in technology. Africa quite literally could become one or several large nations in a generation or two, the eugenics councils of the world however won't/can't allow that to happen.
Steyn's book "America Alone"
Steyn's book "America Alone" takes a good look at how western society is holding up.
Or rather, collapsing into the dust bin of history.
> Overpopulation can easily be seen as the root of most of the world's current problems.
And here I thought it was cupidity.
Indeed ReFlex, you can show us all the way by never procreating.
Now referencing a Mark Steyn
Now referencing a Mark Steyn book, gotta love someone who just keeps digging that hole! (psst, you're supposed to climb out!)
Oh, and it's called a vasectomy; and yes, I'm planning on having one.
> Now referencing a Mark
> Now referencing a Mark Steyn book, gotta love someone who just keeps digging that hole!
By looking at actual demographics!? The cad!
> Oh, and it's called a vasectomy; and yes, I'm planning on having one.
Well... that was easy.
Did you know that you can reduce your carbon footprint even further by amputating your arms? (Source: American Journal of Amputation for Sustainability)
Come on, Flex. Any two-bit carbon-maker can sever their vasa deferentia. Real environmentalists trust the science and cut off their arms. It's the least you can do for ecological sustainability.
So, amputation and vasectomy
So, amputation and vasectomy are the same thing . . . nice!
Oh, and here's a summary of a typical Mark Steyn book: Brown People Bad! White People Good! Ok, a bit of an exaggeration, but not by far; gotta love how some "traditions" never go away!
Please tell me you wouldn't
Please tell me you wouldn't cut off your arms if there was a worldwide scientific consensus that we all needed to cut off our arms to stave off human extinction.
I'm looking for even the pretense here that you're not that far gone. ;)
As for Steyn: read the durned book!
His argument is a nutshell:
White People: Rapidly dying off (fact)
Muslims: Rapidly growing in population (fact)
France, Italy et al.: More than 50% Muslim and rising (fact)
Muslim Nations: Somewhere you don't want to live (fact)
Call him a bigot if you need to ignore what he's saying, but I question the wisdom of it. Besides, you're already at "White people bad! Brown people bad!". How hard is it to move to "White people good"?
"White people good" . . .
"White people good" . . . love it!
Nice to know I wasn't far off on Marky Mark; I thought it was just plain ol' racism, but apparently its mostly good ol' Islamophobia (passively ignoring secular Muslim nations like Turkey and the UAE) as a justification!
Oh, and from what I hear, that 50% is actually about immigration, or perhaps birthrate. Europe is still quite overwhelmingly Catholic/Protestant, for what it's worth in a continent that is firmly secular.
Wow, that hole sure is getting deep!
> ...good ol'
> ...good ol' Islamophobia...
Great!
You have no problem with Islam.
You couldn't give a toot about demographics.
Anybody who does give a toot about demographics, or who questions whether a majority Islamic population in a democratic society could be problematic, is, in your infinite wisdom, an 'Islamophobe'.
No doubt the people driven out of the increasing number of municipalities in the UK and France operating under Sharia law, which abhors women, homosexuals, and any freedom of expression, are also hopeless Islamophobes.
> Oh, and from what I hear, that 50% is actually about immigration, or perhaps birthrate.
Really?
And here I thought it was people spontaneously popping in and out of existence. Like the Higgs' boson.
> Europe is still quite overwhelmingly Catholic/Protestant...
Your 'overwhelming' isn't, even to begin with. It's whelmingness is also diminishing at a rather alarming rate, which is the point Steyn makes.
> Wow, that hole sure is getting deep!
Well, I'm offering you a hand out of it, but you keep on plugging your ears and saying "la la la la la...". ;)
And you know what, ReFlex? I give up.
Throw up your feet, snip your clip, cut off your arms, dismiss critical thought as bigotry, and do whatever it is you feel you need to do to 'save the planet'. An armless, sterile ReFlex, wandering though life (wondering what all these crazy 'random organizations' are) strikes me as no great loss to humanity.
Muslim basher indeed! Oooh,
Muslim basher indeed!
Oooh, CIA World Fact Book to the rescue! They may miss a lot of things, but this is one of the few things they get right; it's hard to miss with minutia!
The actual number varies from country to country, and is from 1% to 10%, the latter being very generous! In fact, in many nations, the main "religion" of choice is "none"! Just call her Europe The Secular!
Yup, it seems the "50%" "fact" was pulled out of a certain Steyn hind region!
Of note: Muslim-descended Zinedine Zidane led the French national team to a World Cup victory in 1998 (too bad his career will be best known for a certain unfortunate incident eight years later); I have a feeling the French don't mind that bit of extra spice in their culture!
Oh, and as a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind living in the billionaire playground that is the United Arab Emirates! Of course, I also wouldn't mind dating Nicole Kidman, and that seems more likely.
> The actual number varies
> The actual number varies from country to country, and is from 1% to 10%, the latter being very generous!
In France and Italy, the current number is 10% and 8%. But these are the numbers for 'official adherence'.
Perhaps I misrepresented Steyn's findings. His figure of 50% was used in two places: for France specifically, where it was the extrapolated percentage of population in 2030 based on birth/death/immigration rates, and where (I misrepresented) it was the percentage of respondents that indicated their loyalty to their (Islamic) homelands superseded that of their loyalty to their nation in Europe.
Steyn readily admitted there are currently only a scattering of '50% or more' Islamic boroughs and communes. His caveats in the book were three-fold: (i) if you limit the demographics to 30-and-under, the numbers shift significantly, (ii) the birthrates and immigration rates fully support the 50%/2030 scenario, and (iii) at present, the loyalty of newly immigrated Muslims to their glorious adoptive secular state is practically nil.
> Of note: Muslim-descended Zinedine Zidane led...
I have nothing against Muslims that have nothing against Christianity. Truth be known, I prefer their morality to that of the secular humanists (a.k.a. hedonism). Steyn's 'bigotry' was to question where their loyalties lie. He says it's with homeland, and not with state. And if the ones that do have a loyalty to France, Italy, etc. are dying off exponentially, while those that don't are growing exponentially, how long will it be before events like the rioting in Paris from two years ago are commonplace?
> Oh, and as a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind living in the billionaire playground that is the United Arab Emirates!
You would.
I don't suppose it's
I don't suppose it's possible that any antipathy some middle eastern Muslims have for westerners has less to do with religious bigotry and more to do with the fact that we've spent the last fifty years bombing and invading their countries and supporting the worst tyrants and maniacs in the region?
Nah. We're exceptional Americans. There's no possible causal relationship between the way we treat others and the way they treat us.
Post new comment