Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Gary Severson]

Ed says, "While it is true that two-thirds of our planet is water, there are innovations that suggest all that water surface could be employed for solar energy purposes (albeit in smaller batches".

ED, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WE'LL BE LIVING ON WATER SKIS? THERE WON'T BE ANY MORE LAND JUST BECAUSE THE SEA IS GENERATING ENERGY.

[Ed Jewett]

Ed says, "While it is true that two-thirds of our planet is water, there are innovations that suggest all that water surface could be employed for solar energy purposes (albeit in smaller batches".

ED, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WE'LL BE LIVING ON WATER SKIS? THERE WON'T BE ANY MORE LAND JUST BECAUSE THE SEA IS GENERATING ENERGY.

You have already widely dissed and dismissed me, and now you expect me to share someone's proprietary thinking?!

[Ed Jewett]

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full Movie)(1:15:57)

The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, presents scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who dispute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE

****

"State of Fear" (Michael Crichton)
http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael...0066214130

"From Publishers Weekly:
If Crichton is rightif the scientific evidence for global warming is thin; if the environmental movement, ignoring science, has gone off track; if we live in what he in his Author's Message calls a "State of Fear," a "near-hysterical preoccupation with safety that's at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism"then his extraordinary new thriller may in time be viewed as a landmark publication, both cautionary and prophetic....."

****

The Wikipedia entry about the book (excerpts):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear

"Crichton included a statement of his views on global climate change as an afterword. In the "Author's message", Crichton states that the cause, extent, and threat of climate change is largely unknown and unknowable. He finishes by endorsing the management of wilderness and the continuation of research into all aspects of the Earth's environment.
In Appendix I, Crichton warns both sides of the global warming debate against the politicization of science. Here he provides two examples of the disastrous combination of pseudo-science and politics: the early 20th-century ideas of eugenics (which he directly cites as one of the theories that allowed for the Holocaust) and Lysenkoism.
This appendix is followed by a bibliography of 172 books and journal articles that Crichton presents "...to assist those readers who would like to review my thinking and arrive at their own conclusions." (State of Fear, pp, 583)."

"Criticism

[edit]Scientific
This novel received criticism from many climate scientists,[1][6][15] science journalists[16][17] and environmental groups[18][19] for inaccuracies and misleading information. Sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research.[6] One of those in disagreement was MIT meteorology professor Richard Lindzen, who stated "the science was handled intelligently and responsibly."[6]
Several scientists whose research had been referenced in the novel stated that Crichton had distorted it in the novel. Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper,[20] wrote in the New York Times stating that
"... our results have been misused as "evidence" against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel "State of Fear"[15]
Myles Allen, Head of the Climate Dynamics Group, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, wrote in Nature in 2005:
"Michael Crichton's latest blockbuster, State of Fear, is also on the theme of global warming and is likely to mislead the unwary. . . Although this is a work of fiction, Crichton's use of footnotes and appendices is clearly intended to give an impression of scientific authority."[1]
The American Geophysical Union, consisting of over 50,000 members from over 135 countries, states in their newspaper Eos in 2006:
"We have seen from encounters with the public how the political use of State of Fear has changed public perception of scientists, especially researchers in global warming, toward suspicion and hostility."[21]
James E. Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote: He (Michael Crichton) doesn't seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about.[4] Jeffrey Masters, Chief meteorologist for Weather Underground, writes: "Crichton presents an error-filled and distorted version of the Global Warming science, favoring views of the handful of contrarians that attack the consensus science of the IPCC."[2]
The Union of Concerned Scientists devote a section of their website to what they describe as misconceptions readers may take away from the book.[19]"

[Gary Severson]

There you go, the critics understand what is at stake. Apparently Crichten has been effective considering Tex. Gov., what's his face, said yesterday he doesn't believe in AGW even as the world's geologists are getting ready to declare a new geologic era called "anthropogenic" after the fact that man has so completely altered the Earth's environment that it warrants a name.

[Ed Jewett]

Based on what the pundits and the media are telling us, the geologists may want to allow a time time to go by before they name the next era after a cause; Paul Krugman, the American economist, professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times, said the other day on CNN that the aliens were coming.

Instead of "the anthropegenic era", it might have to be the the era of the Centaurian replenishment.

[Gary Severson]

Of course you read the art. & he said fake an alien invasion. Of course we will accomplish the same kind of stimulus when we attack Iran.

I watched the whole YouTube film on global warming & can't believe the disingenuous testimony of all the scientists they feature. Every point they make has been discredited by the real experts in the field.

[Ed Jewett]

Aliens, Iranians, global warming... a giant game of deception and destruction. Who is having fun with this? Who benefits?

[Ed Jewett]

When I saw this story, I had to ask "Who is this?" after Googling to see who else was carrying the story. At this late hour (11:20+ PM GMT -5), the answer was "No one." So then I asked "Who is this NewsCore?" Ah, I said... Rupert Murdoch's internal shotgun blaster, er, I mean "feed wire"... Aha!, that explains a lot...


Experts Release ET Invasion Scenarios
Updated: Thursday, 18 Aug 2011, 4:03 PM CDT
Published : Thursday, 18 Aug 2011, 4:03 PM CDT

(NewsCore) - We've all heard of the ravaged rain forests and the plight of the polar bear. But as far as reasons for saving the planet go, the one offered by scientists Thursday is truly out of this world.

A team of American researchers have produced a range of scenarios in which aliens could attack the earth, and curiously, one revolves around climate change.

They speculate that extraterrestrial environmentalists could be so appalled by our planet-polluting ways that they view us as a threat to the intergalactic ecosystem and decide to destroy us.

The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis."

It divides projected close encounters into "neutral," those that cause mankind "unintentional harm" and, more worryingly, those in which aliens do us "intentional harm."

"ETI could attack and kill us, enslave us, or potentially even eat us. ETI could attack us out of selfishness or out of a more altruistic desire to protect the galaxy from us. We might be a threat to the galaxy just as we are a threat to our home planet," it warns.

One such scenario is the stuff of many a Hollywood blockbuster, a "standard fight-to-win conflict: a war of the worlds." But another might resonate more with fans of Al Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient truth."

It speculates that aliens, worried we might inflict the damage done to our own planet on others, might "seek to preemptively destroy our civilization in order to protect other civilizations from us." [We had to destroy the planet in order to knock some sense into the local residents.]

"Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilizational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere (e.g. via greenhouse gas emissions), which therefore changes the spectral signature of Earth," the study says. [I'd have thought it was the recent over-heating of the ionosphere, the radical recent increase in radiation, the increased inter-galactic signature from depleted uranium, or perhaps the exudate from having over-militarized the place.]

"While it is difficult to estimate the likelihood of this scenario, it should at a minimum give us pause as we evaluate our expansive tendencies."

But before we brace ourselves for alien annihilation, the report suggests things could turn in humanity's favor.

"As we continue the search for extraterrestrials into the future, perhaps our thinking about the different modes of contact will help human civilization to avoid collapse and achieve long-term survival," it suggests. ["Humungousaur, we apologize for not having dusted and scrubbed the floors before you came, but we've put all our unemployed to work on the project and hope to have it cleared up soon. Meanwhile, we have collected vast quantities of carbon taxes for you; perhaps you can bring some of those spongifrom fungi the next time you come."]

[Gary Severson]

The theme you describe was the idea in Whitley Strieber's book COMMUNION 10-15 yrs. ago.

[Mark Stapleton]

Well, of course I'm saying JFK was in favor of the UN and saw it as the best way to achieve world peace. .

Of course, noble but naive idealist he was.

I think he would have agreed with us on this thread. He had a logical mind.