The Malthusian Conspiracy?, The Possible Big Picture Options

[dMz]

Continuing with post #63, and Club of Rome and the RIIA Rhodesian "Round Tables" are key here from my research:

http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome

Be sure to read that author's "about" page:

http://green-agenda.com/author.html
------------
Now one of those Club of Rome members, one Dr. Jim Botkin's perspective:

http://www.newhorizons.org/future/botkin1.htm

[Is my Hegelian sky falling then?]

[lunk]

It just makes me want to hit my head against a wall.

[dMz]

I'll let TO call whether Club of Rome is too off-topic and warrants pruning to another topic, but here are the elite "Club"'s own words:

http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/new_path/

http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/about/instan...Development.pdf
--------------
Club of Rome Programme on
"A New Path for World Development"

It is clear that the present path of world development is not sustainable in the longer term, even if we recognise the enormous potentials of the market and of technological innovation. New ideas and strategies will be needed to ensure that improved living conditions and opportunities for a growing population across the world can be reconciled with the conservation of a viable climate and of the fragile ecosystems on which all life depends. A new vision and path for world development must be conceived and adopted if humanity is to surmount the challenges ahead.

In response to this intellectual and practical challenge, the Club of Rome will undertake a three year programme on "A New Path for World Development" so as to achieve a better understanding of the complex challenges which confront the modern world and to lay solid foundations for the action which must be taken to improve the prospects for peace and progress.

The Programme will not only engage decision makers and experts and provide them with feasible proposals for action but will also engage with the public through a variety of channels. It will be in part, an "open source" programme. It will undertake only a limited amount of original research, drawing on the wide array of available information and research in progress. It will be implemented in close collaboration with partner organizations, providing a framework through which their ideas and contributions can be integrated. This will increase the credibility and impact of the efforts of the Club itself.

The Programme will focus on five "clusters" of related issues within the overall conceptual framework of A New Path for World Development:

http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/new_path/npwd.jpg

(IMG:http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/new_path/npwd.jpg)

1.Environment and Resources: This cluster relates climate change, peak oil, ecosystems and water. Radical and rapid social and economic transformations will be needed to avert runaway climate change and ecological breakdown;

2. Globalisation: This cluster relates interdependence, distribution of wealth and income, demographic change, employment, trade and finance. Rising inequalities and imbalances associated with the present path of globalisation risk the breakdown of the world economic and financial systems;

3. World Development: This cluster relates sustainable development, demographic growth, poverty, environmental stress, food production, health and employment. The scandal of abiding poverty, deprivation, inequity and exclusion in a wealthy world must be corrected;

4. Social Transformation: This cluster relates social change, gender equity, values and ethics, religion and spirituality, culture, identity and behaviour. The values and behaviour on which the present path of world development is based must change if peace and progress are to be preserved within the tightening human and environmental limits;

5. Peace and Security: This cluster relates justice, democracy, governance, solidarity, security and peace. The present path of world development risks alienation, polarization, violence and conflict; the preservation of peace is vital in itself but is also a precondition for progress and for the resolution of the issues which threaten the future.

Within each of these clusters, the issues are strongly linked: thus each group constitutes a coherent and manageable field for analysis. The links between the clusters will be accounted for as the programme proceeds, within the overall integrating framework of A New Path for World Development.

The Club will convene five small high-level expert meetings successively over the three year period, 2008 - 2010, one on each of the clusters of issues identified above. Each meeting should produce a clear statement on the issues, risks and opportunities ahead with an outline of the principal strategies and measures required in response. As the Programme proceeds, the insights and knowledge gained from each meeting will provide clear perspectives of constraints and opportunities as the context for the next meeting. By recognizing such linkages, the knowledge acquired will be cumulative and will produce innovative insights as the Programme proceeds.

In relation to each cluster of issues, a private, web-based research network will be established through which the participants in the expert meetings, together with additional experts, can carry on a process of dialogue and research to develop a deeper understanding of the issues and to elaborate specific recommendations and proposals.

Each of these five clusters of issues will be the focus of a specific area of information and analysis on the Club of Rome website. As the analysis proceeds and knowledge increases, each area will accumulate research results, a strengthening data base, a deepening understanding of the issues and their complex interconnectedness and a growing number of proposals for integrated strategy and action.


Systems Integration

As work proceeds on the five clusters, a parallel effort will focus on developing a better conceptual and practical understanding of the world systems within which they are linked and embedded. This will help to understand the linkages between trends, issues and actions and to identify the drivers of global change. The Programme will in this way recognize the immense complexity of world affairs.

A dedicated research network will focus on the issue of systems integration, including systems thinking and systems linkages and systems dynamics modelling. These networks will be supported by the Secretariat and accessed through the Club's website.

In late 2010 it is planned that the concluding "International Forum of the Club of Rome" will be held to integrate the final outputs of the expert meetings, of the research networks and of the related activities by all the elements of the Club and its partner organizations, leading to coherent conclusions and recommendations and to a major Final Report.
-----------------------------------
http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/outputs_bank/

International Conference: "From Global Warning to Global Policy"
Co-sponsored by the World Political Forum and the Club of Rome, held in Torino on 29th March 2008, under the chairmanship of President Mikhail Gorbachev:

"the time is ripe to introduce a new political architecture that bridges the local and global."
-----------------------------
Publications Bank

http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/featured_publications_bank/

[dMz]

Since I don't (and won't) buy a copy of the Club of Rome's 1972 book Limits to Growth, here's an excerpt from the Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth
--------------------
...
The purpose of Limits to Growth was not to make specific predictions, but to explore how exponential growth interacts with finite resources. Because the size of resources is not known, only the general behavior can be explored.
...

Exponential reserve index
One key idea that the book Limits to Growth discusses is that if the rate of resource use is increasing, the amount of reserves cannot be calculated by simply taking the current known reserves and dividing by the current yearly usage, as is typically done to obtain a static index. For example, in 1972, the amount of chromium reserves was 775 million metric tons, of which 1.85 million metric tons were mined annually. (See exponential growth.) The static index is 775 / 1.85 = 418 years, but the rate of chromium consumption was growing at 2.6% annually (Limits to Growth, pp 54–71). If instead of assuming a constant rate of usage, the assumption of a constant rate of growth of 2.6% annually is made, the resource will instead last 93 years ((IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/3/f/d3f5a103412dd1ebd625907fcb13f8ad.png) (note that the book rounded off numbers)).

In general, the formula for calculating the amount of time left for a resource with constant consumption growth is :

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/3/3/b337a585b778b885da2becd15e33e0fe.png)

Where:
y = years left
g = 1.026 (2.6% annual consumption growth)
R = reserve
C = consumption (annually)

The authors list a number of similar exponential indices comparing current reserves to current reserves multiplied by a factor of five:


Years Resource Consumption growth rate, annual Static index Exponential index 5 times reserves exponential index Chromium 2.6% 420 95 154 Gold 4.1% 11 9 29 Iron 1.8% 240 93 173 Petroleum 3.9% 31 20 50 The static reserve numbers assume that the usage is constant, and the exponential reserve assumes that the growth rate is constant. For petroleum, neither the assumption of constant usage or the assumption of constant exponential growth was correct in the years that followed.

Whether intended or not, the exponential index has often been interpreted as a prediction of the number of years until the world would "run out" of various resources, both by environmentalist groups calling for greater conservation and restrictions on use, and by skeptics criticizing the index when supplies failed to run out. For example, The Skeptical Environmentalist (page 121) states: "Limits to Growth showed us that we would have run out of oil before 1992." What Limits to Growth actually has is the above table, which has the current reserves (that is no new sources of oil are found) for oil running out in 1992 assuming constant exponential growth.^[6][7][8]

---------------------------
Problems with above:

g == ??
R == ??
C == ??

The uncertainties and verifiable sources for the above quantities == ??
-------------------------
See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

[dMz]

Q: What mathematical function y(x) is described by the graph below? [This might be a mathematical model for GW, or MMGW, or GHGICC]

(IMG:http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/8094/mysteryfnlw4.th.jpg) (IMG:http://img503.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif)

[Omega892R09]

What sort of twisted bullshit logic is this.

If you think that is 'twisted bullshit logic' then it is little wonder that you are continuing to career around in your own personal delusion bubble.

Sorry but your combative style is beginning to seriously piss me off, there is just no need for it.

I demonstrate where you can find out more on this topic but all you can manage is to rant using the same tired arguments re Monkton et. al..

The fact that what was a pretty harmless theory which caused a couple of Poindexters to soil their pocket protectors was hijacked by an Earth first movement led by a cartel of international criminal bankters has now finally got the legs they needed is somehow the fault of those trying to point out what the f*ck was going on. Yeah right.

Careful, you just might vanish up seventh rock from the sun.

Me thinks you're suffering from cognitive dissonance with the realization that you and all your tree hugging Malthusian mates have been had.

No chance. The science (broken or not) informs otherwise. Or more exactly many branches of science combine to produce a picture which only the foolhardy or deluded would ignore.

The theory that CO2 causes global warming was their perfect vehicle, since It's a bloody green house gas. All green house gasses contribute to warming the planet, without them you would be a pink Popsicle with your frozen arms locked around the trunk of some petrified dead tree.

Which is true, but have you never heard of 'too much of a good thing'?

You and your kind allowed yourselves to be brainwashed by the BBC and bullshit, you and you kind provided an unofficial mandate to the criminals and you and your kind are about to reap the benefits.

Which statement reinforces my opinion that you realy have not studied much literature on this topic if you think it is the BBC informing my opinions.

I really do not understand why you so vehemently quote the BBC at me. Was it that Australia water shortage report that I pointed you at? If so then I can understand your ire considering your earlier declaration about Australia being a big land, which I would not deny, and thus having a variety of climatic conditions, a fact which I would again not gainsay, with the implication that WRT climate you had 'no worries', for clearly that report, not confined to the BBC, originated from people who live and farm in the affected area. Is that then BBC bullshit?

Open your eyes mate.

As one of these criminals one famously said, How Dare You.

Such bluster, a Monkton speciality too, is often used by those who deap down realise that they have not got logical arguments on their side but yet do not want to openly admit it.

I am against carbon trading and wasting valuable land for growing bio-fuel crops - both areas where big business and money men have got in on the game. But as I said because the climate change movement has been high-jacked by the like should not mean that we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

That you cannot see this makes me despair of discussing this with you further for rational arguments have you none.

[Timothy Osman]

I am against carbon trading and wasting valuable land for growing bio-fuel crops - both areas where big business and money men have got in on the game. But as I said because the climate change movement has been high-jacked by the like should not mean that we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

There is no baby in the bathwater as far as carbon dioxide goes. The CO2 baby has been planted and exaggerated into as a money making control mechanism for our societies richest 1%.

This is a pretty simple premise, we all know that we can't go on the way we're going. That as Humans we need dramatic change in the way our society is run. This change can not be allowed to be forced upon us from the very same lying elite which are the root cause of the mess we're in now. Their solution is the implementation of a system based on carbon which will impact every facet of our lives, which we pay for while they continue to reap benefits.
Any fair solution must involve the removal of this 1% which control over 90% of the planets wealth and resources, not simply place the burden on the masses and allow the status quo to remain in power.

I'll let TO call whether Club of Rome is too off-topic and warrants pruning to another topic

The Club of Rome is right on topic. Besides I welcome any contribution, from anyone. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[lunk]

I would like to see the elite see themselves as our equals not betters.

The last great depression, even though farmers had their equipment and stores had their shelves, and the factories and workers were all there, the whole system shut down because of lack of money.
...a sort of a lame reason for catastrophe when you look at it this way.

The Club of Rome is a show stopper when one looks
at who the blamers are, and why they are trying to get
humanity to believe themselves responsible for global warming.

A government, to exist, needs an enemy but there is no enemy to a global government,
so the idea was hatched,(in the 1940's), to make people the enemy,
by telling them that they are the main cause of global warming
and are destroying the global environment.

There was also another idea to make believe that we were all under extra terrestrial threat,
and we had to unite, because Usama has moved to a cave on Mars, or something even more ridiculous.

We have been lied to our entire lives
and the system we are living in was
intentionally made for us by the same elite families,
keeping us in the dark and feeding us steaming horse plop.

imo, lunk

[dMz]

It's actually a little older than the 1940s, lunk: (Rhodes, Milner, Keynes, Ruskin, Malthus, "Col" House/W.Wilson of FedRes fame, Rothschilds, H.G. Wells, Fabain Society, etc.) I suspect that painter and Sanders would tell us much older...

http://watch.pair.com/roundtable.html

And sorry O892, but in the interests of accurate research:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/board/index.html

Management structure

In 1996 the Met Office became a Trading Fund within the Ministry of Defence. As a Trading Fund the Met Office is required to operate on a commercial basis and meet agreed performance targets as set by the Ministerial Owner.

Met Office Owner

The Under Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for Veterans, currently Derek Twigg, is the individual charged with directing and overseeing the Met Office on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence. The ultimate responsibility and accountability lies with the Secretary of State for Defence, currently the Right Honourable Des Browne MP.

Those in Canada, NZ, Oz, and UK may want to review some of those other names (not really familiar to me).

Beautiful post BTW lunk.

[Timothy Osman]

The New Environmentalist Eugenics:
Al Gore’s Green Genocide

by Rob Ainsworth

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007...3_ainsworth.pdf

This takes it right back to Cecil Rhodes round table and beyond.

[Timothy Osman]

Are Malthus's Predicted 1798 Food Shortages Coming True?
It remains to be seen whether his famously gloomy prediction is truly wrong or merely postponed

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

In 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus famously predicted that short-term gains in living standards would
inevitably be undermined as human population growth outstripped food production, and thereby drive living standards back toward subsistence. We were, he argued, condemned by the tendency of population to grow geometrically while food production would increase only arithmetically.

For 200 years, economists have contended that Malthus overlooked technological advancement, which would allow human beings to keep ahead of the population curve. The argument is that food production can indeed grow geometrically because production depends not only on land but also on know-how. With advances in seed breeding, soil nutrient replenishment (such as chemical fertilizers), irrigation, mechanization and more, the food supply can stay well ahead of the population curve. More generally, advances in technology in all its aspects—agriculture, energy, water use, manufacturing, disease control, information management, transport, communications—can keep production rising ahead of population.

Another factor undermining Malthus’s argument, it would seem, is the demographic transition, according to which societies move from conditions of high fertility rates roughly offset by high mortality rates to conditions of low fertility rates together with low mortality rates. Malthus did not reckon with the advance of public health, family planning, and modern contraception, which together with urbanization and other trends, would result in a dramatic decline in fertility rates to low levels, even below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 children per household. Perhaps the human population would avoid the tendency towards geometric growth altogether.

These critiques of Malthusian pessimism have long seemed irresistible. Indeed, when I trained in economics, Malthusian reasoning was a target of mockery, held up by my professors as an example of a naïve forecast gone wildly wrong. After all, since Malthus’s time, incomes per person averaged around the world have increased at least an order of magnitude according to economic historians, despite a population increase from around 800 million in 1798 to 6.7 billion today. Some economists have gone so far as to argue that high and rising populations have been a major cause of increased living standards, rather than an impediment. In that interpretation, the eightfold increase in population since 1798 has also raised the number of geniuses in similar proportion, and it is genius above all that propels global human advance. A large human population, so it is argued, is just what is needed to propel progress.

Yet the Malthusian specter is not truly banished—indeed far from it. Our increase in know-how has not only been about getting more outputs for the same inputs, but also about our ability to mine the Earth for more inputs. The first Industrial Revolution began with the use of fossil fuel, specifically coal, through Watt’s steam engine. Humanity harnessed geological deposits of ancient solar energy, stored as coal, oil, and gas, to do our modern bidding. We learned to dig deeper for minerals, fish the oceans with larger nets, divert rivers with greater dams and canals, appropriate more habitats of other species and cut down forests with more powerful land-clearing equipment. In countless ways, we have not gotten more for less but rather more for more, as we’ve converted rich stores of natural capital into high flows of current consumption. Much of what we call “income,” in the true sense of adding value from economic activity, is actually depletion instead, or the running down of natural capital.


And although family planning and contraception have indeed secured a low fertility rate in most parts of the world, the overall fertility rate remains at 2.6, far above replacement. Sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the world, still has a total fertility rate of 5.1 children per woman, and the global population continues to rise by about 79 million per year, with much of the increase in the world’s poorest places. According to the medium-fertility forecast of the United Nations Population Division we are on course for 9.2 billion people by mid-century.

If we indeed run out of inexpensive oil and fall short of food, deplete our fossil groundwater and destroy remaining rainforests, and gut the oceans and fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gases that tip the earth’s climate into a runaway hothouse with rising ocean levels, we might yet confirm the Malthusian curse. Yet none of this is inevitable The idea that improved know-how and voluntary fertility reduction can sustain a high, indeed rising, level of incomes for the world remains correct, but only if future technology enables us to economize on natural capital rather than finding ever more clever ways to deplete it more cheaply and rapidly.

In the coming decades we will have to convert to solar power and safe nuclear power, both of which offer essentially unbounded energy supplies (compared with current energy use) if harnessed properly and with improved technologies and social controls. Know-how will have to be applied to long-mileage automobiles, water-efficient farming, and green buildings that cut down sharply on energy use. We will need to re-think modern diets and urban design to achieve healthier lifestyles that also cut down on energy-intensive consumption patterns. And we will have to help Africa and other regions to speed the demographic transition to replacement fertility levels, in order to stabilize the global population at around 8 billion.

There is nothing in such a sustainable scenario that violates the Earth’s resource constraints or energy availability. Yet we are definitely not yet on such a sustainable trajectory, and our current market signals do not lead us to such a path. We will need new policies to push markets in a sustainable manner (for example, taxes on carbon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions) and to promote technological advances in resource saving rather than resource mining. We will need a new politics to recognize the importance of a sustainable growth strategy and global cooperation to achieve it.

Have we beaten Malthus? After two centuries, we still do not really know.

You see the pickle we're in, not with the planet or population but with Green Guru's, Gaia worshipers and probably worst of all, highfalutin bean counters.
Africa is mentioned as having a problem with birthrates which are high due to poverty, the solution offered is to speed the demographic transition to replacement fertility levels. Silly me, I thought 700 Billion would cover it. The problems with our society's can't be solved by bean counters, regardless of how famous or in who's ear they whisper.
In a nutshell they are trying to change the way people think by means of deception, fear and economic manipulation while maintaining the latest Pyramid scheme.

In that interpretation, the eightfold increase in population since 1798 has also raised the number of geniuses in similar proportion, and it is genius above all that propels global human advance. A large human population, so it is argued, is just what is needed to propel progress.

Unfortunately due to the fact that our progress has been artificially retarded by greed our great thinker died of starvation somewhere in sub Saharan Africa. It was the same day Britney showed the world she was rich enough to exit a Limo without underpants.

[Timothy Osman]

Just received an interesting Email.

Dear Colleague,

Carbon Market Expo Australasia kicks off Thursday on the Gold Coast with 900+ delegates from 25 countries.



For those wishing to visit the Trade Fair only there is a $100 daily registration option.



Online registration closes COB today ! Limited additional registration numbers will be accepted at the door.


You can book using the online registration form at;

http://www.carbonexpo.com.au

Looks like a who's who of the global warming scam.

Not sure how I became a colleague, me thinks they just spammed Gold Coast businesses. This is a good scam to make money off, the trouble is as usual they only let the rabble in when the elevator is just about at the top floor. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Holy crap $100 AUD is like 3 whole Yen at the moment.

[Timothy Osman]

Greenpeace use JFK video footage for their propaganda. Not only was he murdered long before the Apollo myth and long before the climate was used in myth to scare the masses they did a crap job and picked on the wrong corpse.

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
John F. Kennedy
35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963)

Top of the comments on the youtube link.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=J8dLHZ6jKFc&...-for-halloween/

Disgusting and a little bit weird.

[dMz]

Hey TO! First they took the Aussie guns, now the dollar and internet, too (in recent Latest News, I think).

It has been a pleasure serving with you mate! [I used to brawl my way out of barfights with an Aussie post-doc (Physics, of course) from Adelaide that looked like an older Heath Ledger and that I worked with/for. I'd tell the locals in my native tongue "don't hate him because he's beautiful, or for his fair dinkum accent." Then it was usually "ON," but we did pretty well with the ladies back then, after the bruises and swelling went away. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ]

I hope you've got some good 'roo and snake recipes, mate. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[Timothy Osman]

Hey TO! First they took the Aussie guns, now the dollar and internet, too (in recent Latest News, I think)

Yeah we're screwed. However the guns and the internet discussion and contact might just be less visible, I know a lot of holes were being dug when little Johnny was after our rifles. I know I gave my rifles to a bloke who was keeping them for posterity. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

As far as a good blue in a pub these days forget it, you'll end up either glassed or stabbed or under Six Samoans.
It used to be a sport.

[Omega892R09]

Hey TO! First they took the Aussie guns, now the dollar and internet, too (in recent Latest News, I think).

Yeah! I pointed that out I recall.

As for the UK Met Office ref' in an earlier post of yours #89 (about the time my computer died) OK fine but don't let that fool you into thinking that there is nothing to the anthropogenic signature in climate change. A old book on meteorology that I have here, which does not bang on about climate change, backs up the theories about the increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 having a warming effect. This part of the science is not nonsense.

What is nonsense are measures for carbon trading and ethanol production.

We have reached a stage in understanding of the environment in general that makes it indisputable that a business as usual course will lead to disaster for the planet as we know it, and it seems that TO agrees. I am as wary of the moves of the rulers of the world as you or TO but please don't make TO's mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the baby being our understanding, still scant as it is, of climate science and 'throwing' being 'easy dismisal'.

A quick flip through a book at a book store should not be used as the basis of rational discussion as to the arguments presented in that book - viz, 'The Rough Guide to Climate Change'

TO is obssesed as demonstrated by his willingeness to believe, without criticism, the likes of Lord Christopher Monkton. Now I wonder what Monkton's true agenda is?

[Omega892R09]

by Rob Ainsworth

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007...3_ainsworth.pdf

This takes it right back to Cecil Rhodes round table and beyond.

Methinks you should do some digging on Lyndon Larouche.

[Timothy Osman]

We have reached a stage in understanding of the environment in general that makes it indisputable that a business as usual course will lead to disaster for the planet as we know it, and it seems that TO agrees. I am as wary of the moves of the rulers of the world as you or TO but please don't make TO's mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the baby being our understanding, still scant as it is, of climate science and 'throwing' being 'easy dismisal'.

A quick flip through a book at a book store should not be used as the basis of rational discussion as to the arguments presented in that book - viz, 'The Rough Guide to Climate Change'

TO is obssesed as demonstrated by his willingeness to believe, without criticism, the likes of Lord Christopher Monkton. Now I wonder what Monkton's true agenda is?

Dude if you want to make arguments about points raised in a global warming book by all means make them, don't however expect me to have any interest in rushing out and making an investment in my time by reading said book and making it's case for you. I can confidently destroy any alarmist doctrine raised in that book with my keyboard. Regardless of how subtle the author attempts to be.
We know and have stated endlessly to you that Yes Co2 is a greenhouse gas, Yes human activity contributes to the total amount of atmospheric Co2 and thus contributes to the warming effect of said molecule in our atmosphere. What you don't seem to get is the depth of this deception and how greatly the threat of humanity in it's pursuit of life liberty and happiness has been overstated as a threat to the planet itself. Maybe a Malthusian conspiracy is going to far and yet there are elements of that to this tale with most of the more famous AGW proponents openly calling for population control and reduction and stating their belief in Malthus doctrine.
The worst thing about this dilemma is that the PTB have managed a political divide around global warming alarmism, with huge numbers of people associating climate skeptics with big haired Moose hunters, big oil and neocons. The truth is that party level politics are just different tools from the same box in which set goals specific to the said tool are accomplished.
Case in point, Little Johnny Howard achieved huge amounts for the globalists while all the time pretending to oppose the UN, his laws based upon false flag terror events are untouched by the Rudd government. Kevin 07 is keen to expand terrorism to the Internet.
Howard set about demonizing Aboriginal communities which just happen to be sitting on top of Uranium deposits by the use of child molestation allegations, Uranium which will fuel the reactors replacing the coal fired boilers of our sustainable future.

With its banks secured in the warmth of the southern spring, Australia is not news. It ought to be. An epic scandal of racism, injustice and brutality is being covered up in the manner of apartheid South Africa. Many Australians conspire in this silence, wishing never to reflect upon the truth about their society's untermenschen, the Aboriginal people.

The facts are not in dispute. Thousands of black Australians never reach the age of 40. An entirely preventable disease, trachoma, blinds black children as epidemics of rheumatic fever ravage their communities. Suicide among the despairing young is common. No other developed country has such a record. A pervasive white myth, that Aborigines leach off the state, serves to conceal the disgrace that money the federal government says it spends on indigenous affairs actually goes towards opposing native land rights. In 2006, some A$3billion was underspent "or the result of creative accounting," reported the Sydney Morning Herald. Like the children of apartheid, the Aboriginal children of Thamarrurr in the Northern Territory receive less than half the educational resources allotted to white children.

In 2005, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination described the racism of the Australian state, AGAIN a distinction afforded no other developed country. This was during the decade-long rule of the conservative coalition of John Howard, whose coterie of white supremacist academics and journalists assaulted the truth of recorded genocide in Australia, especially the horrific separations of Aboriginal children from their families. They deployed arguments not dissimilar to those used by David Irving to promote Holocaust denial.

Smear by media as a precursor to the latest round of repression is long familiar to black Australians. In 2006, the flagship current affairs programme of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Lateline, broadcast lurid allegations of "sex slavery" among the Mutitjulu people in the Northern Territory. The programme's source, described as an "anonymous youth worker", was later exposed as a federal government official whose "evidence" was discredited by the Northern Territory Chief Minister and the police. The ABC has never retracted its allegations, claiming it has been "exonerated by an internal enquiry". Shortly before last year's election, Howard declared a "national emergency" and sent the army to the Northern Territory to "protect the children" who, said his minister for indigenous affairs, were being abused in "unthinkable numbers".

Last February, with much sentimental fanfare, the new Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd made a formal apology to the first Australians. Australia was said to be finally coming to terms with its rapacious past, and present. Was it? "The Rudd government," noted a Sydney Morning Herald editorial, "has moved quickly to clear away this piece of political wreckage in a way that responds to some of its own supporters' emotional needs, yet it changes nothing. It is a shrewd manoeuvre."

In May, barely reported, government statistics revealed that of the 7433 Aboriginal children examined by doctors as part of the "national emergency", 39 had been referred to the authorities for suspected abuse. Of those, a maximum of just four possible cases of abuse were identified. Such were the "unthinkable numbers". They were little different from those of child abuse in white Australia. What was different was that no soldiers invaded the beachside suburbs, no white parents were swept aside, no white welfare was "quarantined". Marion Scrymgour, an Aboriginal minister in the Northern Territory government, said, "To see decent, caring [Aboriginal] fathers, uncles, brothers and grandfathers, who are undoubtedly innocent of the horrific charges being bandied about, reduced to helplessness and tears, speaks to me of widespread social damage."

What the doctors found they already knew – children at risk from a spectrum of extreme poverty and the denial of resources in one of the world's richest countries. Having let a few crumbs fall, Kevin Rudd has picked up where Howard left off. His indigenous affairs minister, Jenny Mackie, threatens to withdraw government support from remote communities that are "economically unviable". The Northern Territory is the only region where Aborigines have comprehensive land rights, granted almost by accident 30 years ago. Here lies some of the world's biggest deposits of uranium. Canberra wants to mine it and sell it.

Foreign governments, especially the US, want the Northern Territory as a toxic dump. The railway from Adelaide to Darwin, which runs adjacent to Olympic Dam, the world's largest uranium mine, was built with the help of Kellog, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of the American giant Halliburton, the alma mater of Dick Cheney, Howard's "mate". "The land grab of Aboriginal tribal land has nothing to do with child sexual abuse," says the Australian scientist Helen Caldicott, "but all to do with open slather uranium mining and converting the Northern Territory to a global nuclear dump."

What is unique about Australia is not its sun-baked, derivative society, clinging to the sea, but its first people, the oldest on earth, whose skill and courage in surviving invasion, of which the current onslaught is merely the latest, deserves humanity's support.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21094.htm

In this article you can see the two different appeals to emotion employed at the party political level while achieving the same objective. One uses the tried and tested 'coons are no good' trigger while the other uses the tried and tested paternal "noble savages need our help" trigger. All bases are covered.

Methinks you should do some digging on Lyndon Larouche.

All I know is that they call him a cult leader, fascist, neocon and the like. All normal stuff. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

He really seems to have it in for your majesty as well and tends to shift a lot of blame back to the British.

As far as my obsession with Monkton goes, well I think I have cited a few of his articles so if that makes me obsessed so be it. If you have something about his agenda you wish to share then don't be shy but be fair dinkum and drop the BBC innuendo tactics.

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Nov 1 2008, 08:41 PM

[dMz]

He invented Global Warming...












No, not Albert Gore.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/br...on-scrubber.php

"When the man who coined the phrase "global warming" speaks up, people tend to pay attention. So it was that when Wallace Broecker, a professor at Columbia University, recently called for the use of millions of giant tree-like "scrubbers" (see here for another recent example) to fight global warming, observers didn't immediately dismiss the scheme as harebrained. "

Columbia, eh?

Also see:

http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming

"In 1824, the French scientist Jean-Baptiste Fourier described how the earth's atmosphere functioned like the glass of a greenhouse, trapping heat and maintaining the stable climate that sustained life. By the 1890s, some scientists, including the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius and the American geologist Thomas Chamberlain, had discerned that carbon dioxide had played a central role historically in regulating global temperatures."

[GroundPounder]

if the masses believe in global warming then i don't:

"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." ~ Mark Twain

didn't malthus figure prominently in 'future shock'?

i'm not a complete cynic yet, as i believe that we are never as bad off as claimed. the overpopulation thing is overblown imho. the earth is a pretty big place. you could take everyone on the planet and put them on their own acre of land on the north american continent and the rest of the world would be uninhabited...that's big.. but no matter, the usg has a plan! NSSM200 from as far back as april 1974

co2--it's what i exhale...i'm not going to start hating myself for that, it would be unwise.

i'm sounding like a broken record w/ the governments and multinationals to blame, but aren't they really? i know it wasn't some guy w/ a barn that concocted GMO's (which probably are responsible for colony collapse)

i was disheartened to read about the aussies being disarmed and now with the impending internet thing...wow
when they take away your sword, it's one thing, but to start limiting the ink in the pen....Rodney William Ansell should have been a rallying cry. here, in the ussa, waco should have been but, at least it was an eye opener for many.

assuming that the resource predictions are accurate (and that is a huge leap, though always wise to prepare for eventualities), perhaps the things that are running out, are supposed to? to force us to search for alternatives, to examine priorities, to question everything.

every problem is an opportunity for someone.....cui bono. look at al gore, he's taking the 'idea' of global warming to the bank! that's amazing in a twisted sort of way.


so in my book, malthus is with marx in the antiquated and irrelevant.