PDA

View Full Version : Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device



Greg Burnham
04-20-2011, 07:56 PM
I never cease to be amazed that many weren't taught about Thomas Malthus in high school and/or college. His theories were given a special treatment in the schools I attended due to the significance of the impact they had on economic theories near the end of the 18th century and the impact they continued to have throughout the 20th century and continue to have even to this day.

I am also a bit mystified by the lack of recognition that his theories have greatly impacted the way we all think and act when it comes to survival. The influence that Malthus' theory has exerted in the fields of economics and sociology (particularly in justifying population control) isn't in question. In fact, Malthus' theories are as popular in economics circles as Isaac Newton's laws of motion are popular in physics circles.

The reason I bring this up is because it is an area that is extremely important.

Today we know that Newton's Laws of Motion are fundamentally sound and they are extremely useful to us. We also know that those laws "break down" as a "body of mass" approaches the speed of light, thanks to Albert Einstein's introduction of Special Relativity into the field of Physics.

So too, the principles in Malthus' theories appeared sound in 1798 when they were written, but after the extreme progress in the century following the Industrial Revolution we find that these "principles" also begin to "break down" as we approach an age where the socio-political-economic-industrial-agricultural world is traveling near the "speed of light" (to borrow the metaphor from Physics).

So, the point is this: That Malthus' theories shaped our world is not in question anymore than it is in question whether or not Newton's Laws of Motion have shaped our world. Both have done so to a degree that is both profound and subtle. Both have created the paradigm within which we all live.

When we couple Malthusian theory with Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" concept, we observe a truly insidious world; a world in which only a MAD MAX type of character would thrive.

Once we understand that this "Malthusian/Darwinian" paradigm limits our ability to truly support the "human race" because of its inappropriately "catastrophic" view of population growth, we begin to move away from war and away from all things that are war-like, including the creation of offensive weapons.

Thomas Malthus' -- An Essay on the Principle of Population (written in 1798), says the following on page 5:

"...I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second. By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind."

But, what happens when agricultural technology is improved to the point where food production becomes "geometrically increas-able" and not just arithmetically? And what happens when education and birth control techniques are developed to a degree so that population growth can be self-controlled by the individual without war (read:genocide)?

Well, those two items have changed dramatically since 1798, but "we" as an Anglo-based culture have failed to recognize the change as a whole. Those in the highest levels of wealth and power have no reason to recognize the change--or so they think. The promotion of the "there's not enough to go around" myth serves the purpose of maintaining socio-economic inequality to the benefit of the "haves" and to the detriment of the "have-nots".

The rest of us have a moral obligation--to ourselves, to our children, to their children, and to our fellow men--to recognize this change so that we can embrace a new paradigm and shift away from the old. Not only will it be a more accurate world view as to what has evolved, but it will also be a much more pleasing world in which to live.

Jack White
04-20-2011, 09:55 PM
I never cease to be amazed that many weren't taught about Thomas Malthus in high school and/or college. His theories were given a special treatment in the schools I attended due to the significance of the impact they had on economic theories near the end of the 18th century and the impact they continued to have throughout the 20th century and continue to have even to this day.

I am also a bit mystified by the lack of recognition that his theories have greatly impacted the way we all think and act when it comes to survival. The influence that Malthus' theory has exerted in the fields of economics and sociology (particularly in justifying population control) isn't in question. In fact, Malthus' theories are as popular in economics circles as Isaac Newton's laws of motion are popular in physics circles.

The reason I bring this up is because it is an area that is extremely important.

Today we know that Newton's Laws of Motion are fundamentally sound and they are extremely useful to us. We also know that those laws "break down" as a "body of mass" approaches the speed of light, thanks to Albert Einstein's introduction of Special Relativity into the field of Physics.

So too, the principles in Malthus' theories appeared sound in 1798 when they were written, but after the extreme progress in the century following the Industrial Revolution we find that these "principles" also begin to "break down" as we approach an age where the socio-political-economic-industrial-agricultural world is traveling near the "speed of light" (to borrow the metaphor from Physics).

So, the point is this: That Malthus' theories shaped our world is not in question anymore than it is in question whether or not Newton's Laws of Motion have shaped our world. Both have done so to a degree that is both profound and subtle. Both have created the paradigm within which we all live.

When we couple Malthusian theory with Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" concept, we observe a truly insidious world; a world in which only a MAD MAX type of character would thrive.

Once we understand that this "Malthusian/Darwinian" paradigm limits our ability to truly support the "human race" because of its inappropriately "catastrophic" view of population growth, we begin to move away from war and away from all things that are war-like, including the creation of offensive weapons.

Thomas Malthus' -- An Essay on the Principle of Population (written in 1798), says the following on page 5:

"...I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second. By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind."

But, what happens when agricultural technology is improved to the point where food production becomes "geometrically increas-able" and not just arithmetically? And what happens when education and birth control techniques are developed to a degree so that population growth can be self-controlled by the individual without war (read:genocide)?

Well, those two items have changed dramatically since 1798, but "we" as an Anglo-based culture have failed to recognize the change as a whole. Those in the highest levels of wealth and power have no reason to recognize the change--or so they think. The promotion of the "there's not enough to go around" myth serves the purpose of maintaining socio-economic inequality to the benefit of the "haves" and to the detriment of the "have-nots".

The rest of us have a moral obligation--to ourselves, to our children, to their children, and to our fellow men--to recognize this change so that we can embrace a new paradigm and shift away from the old. Not only will it be a more accurate world view as to what has evolved, but it will also be a much more pleasing world in which to live.

Absolutely, Monk!

Darwinism and Malthusism are 19th century false theories.

So are Communism and what today is called "Capitalism" (but is
really a form of Monopolism (rich get richer, poor get poorer).

Yet academics embrace all of these to various degrees.

Darwin's theory that all life forms were created by "random mutations"
should be rejected by every thinking person.

The ideas of Malthus lead to eugenics, ethnic cleansing, wars, and many
other bad practices.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Jack

Greg Burnham
04-20-2011, 10:35 PM
Thanks Jack!

I was talking with my daughter on the phone a few days ago and was shocked by the lack of attention that was given to Malthus while she was in college. She's a very bright girl with a good memory, yet she couldn't recall Malthus at all! I suspect the reason was due to "lack of coverage" and lack of proper emphasis on the part of the institution.

Jack White
04-21-2011, 01:17 AM
Thanks Jack!

I was talking with my daughter on the phone a few days ago and was shocked by the lack of attention that was given to Malthus while she was in college. She's a very bright girl with a good memory, yet she couldn't recall Malthus at all! I suspect the reason was due to "lack of coverage" and lack of proper emphasis on the part of the institution.

I never heard of Malthus in college. But when I started studying
Skull and Bones and Bushes, I learned of Malthus theories of Eugenics,
killing off unworthies (non-white, non-"Christian"). S&B itself is based
on DEATH to the unworthies.

Malthus' ideas of a limit to population size because of lack of space to
grow is largely bunk. If you have ever flown coast to coast, you note
that more than 99 percent of land is unoccupied. REASONABLE population
growth is possible if economic and natural resources are used wisely and
energy becomes less petroleum oriented. I filled my gas tank today
and for the first time ever it cost me $75. Three weeks ago it was $66.
A year ago it was $45. Several years ago it was $24 (same car). That
is what is killing us...not theories.

Jack

Greg Burnham
04-21-2011, 01:28 AM
Great observations, Jack. Thanks for the reminders--

Jan Klimkowski
04-22-2011, 10:19 PM
Greg - more here:

The Dark History of Population Control (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?2693-The-Dark-History-of-Population-Control&highlight=population+control)

NSSM 200 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?958-National-Security-Study-Memorandum-200&highlight=population+control)

Exposed: FAIR founder's 20 years links to Pioneer Fund, racists and eugenicists (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?27-Exposed-FAIR-founder-s-20-years-links-to-Pioneer-Fund-racists-and-eugenicists&highlight=population+control)

The Human Laboratory (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?620-BBC-Human-Laboratory-transcript&highlight=mumford)

Albert Doyle
05-20-2011, 04:31 PM
I think it is seriously erroneous to say "I flew coast to coast and 99% of land is unoccupied". Earth is in a resource depletion and species extinction phase right now from the population we currently have. CIA says water sources will run-out and become the reason for major conflicts. I think we would need 2.5 Earth's to sustain the present population and its current demands.

Mark Stapleton
06-03-2011, 04:45 PM
I think it is seriously erroneous to say "I flew coast to coast and 99% of land is unoccupied". Earth is in a resource depletion and species extinction phase right now from the population we currently have. CIA says water sources will run-out and become the reason for major conflicts. I think we would need 2.5 Earth's to sustain the present population and its current demands.

I agree.

I don't really understand the point the author of this thread is trying to make but its clear to me that human population growth is the source of most the problems we face today.

It's the economic paradigm of endless growth that must change if we are to survive as a species.

We need this planet more than it needs us.

Ed Jewett
07-01-2011, 07:51 PM
Euthanasia Coaster

July 1st, 2011
Via: Science Gallery:

http://www.sciencegallery.com/humanplus/euthanasia-coaster

Euthanasia Coaster is a hypothetical euthanasia machine in the form of a roller coaster, engineered to humanely—with elegance and euphoria—take the life of a human being. Riding the coaster’s track, the rider is subjected to a series of intensive motion elements that induce various unique experiences: from euphoria to thrill, and from tunnel vision to loss of consciousness and eventually death.

http://cryptogon.com/?p=23300


Text continued from original source:

Thanks to the marriage of the advanced cross-disciplinary research in aerospace medicine, mechanical engineering, material technologies and of course gravity, the fatal journey is made pleasing, elegant and meaningful. Celebrating the limits of the human body but also the liberation from the horizontal life, this ‘kinetic sculpture’ is in fact the ultimate roller coaster. John Allen, former president of the famed Philadelphia Toboggan Company, once said that “the ultimate roller coaster is built when you send out twenty-four people and they all come back dead. This could be done, you know.”

ABOUT THE ARTIST
Julijonas Urbonas is a designer, artist, writer, engineer and PhD student in Design Interactions at the Royal College of Art, London. His work has been exhibited internationally and received many awards, including the Award of Distinction in Interactive Art, Prix Ars Electronica 2010, one the most prestigious awards in media arts. Julijonas lives and works in London and Vilnius.


http://cdn0.sciencegallery.com/files/imagecache/exhibition-prev-440x330/Euthanasia_Coaster_3_bw_0.jpg


Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSEXmhldXQE&feature=player_embedded

Greg Burnham
07-01-2011, 08:42 PM
I think it is seriously erroneous to say "I flew coast to coast and 99% of land is unoccupied". Earth is in a resource depletion and species extinction phase right now from the population we currently have. CIA says water sources will run-out and become the reason for major conflicts. I think we would need 2.5 Earth's to sustain the present population and its current demands.

I agree.

I don't really understand the point the author of this thread is trying to make but its clear to me that human population growth is the source of most the problems we face today.

It's the economic paradigm of endless growth that must change if we are to survive as a species.

We need this planet more than it needs us.

Without restating everything I already wrote, my point is this: It is necessary to promote war when the Malthusian Paradigm is coupled with Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" Paradigm. When both are embraced without the application of critical thinking; embraced even without asking the simple question: "What if they're not entirely correct"? --Then, the future appears extremely dismal, indeed. However, what if the biggest problem we face today is not population growth? What if a bigger problem is ignorance? What if ignorance (about voluntary control of population growth) is a major contributing factor to over population? What if ignorance (as to how crop production might be multiplied many times over in 3rd world countries) is a huge factor in starvation numbers globally? What if ignorance is at the heart of many of the fears people feel even here in America? What if that ignorance, and thus the accompanying fear, starvation, suffering and misery were all eradicated by education?

In my view, war exists due to power grabbing. It is accomplished by gaining support from those who finance it, namely, tax payers. Tax payers are convinced to finance war out of fear. The power mongers promote fear in order to serve this agenda. The type of fear being promoted, however, is far out dated, if not totally obsolete--because we actually have the means through education to solve much of the population growth concerns that almost all of us have grown up "educated" with which to be concerned.

What if there really is (or through education, the potential exists in the immediate future for there to be) "enough to go around" for everyone? What if?

I believe that through education the "lack of enough sustainable resources to go around" argument falls on its face.

"To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." --JFK


.

Mark Stapleton
07-02-2011, 07:04 PM
[What if there really is (or through education, the potential exists in the immediate future for there to be) "enough to go around" for everyone? What if?

I believe that through education the "lack of enough sustainable resources to go around" argument falls on its face.



Hazy idealism.

Humans require the resources provided by this planet. Namely food, energy, clean air, clean water etc. Without these things we are fucked.

How will 'education' replace the things we need to survive?

Humans are breeding other species into extinction because in our relentess drive to expand we are destroying their habitats. This will cause our eventual demise but we deserve our fate. I don't think humans are a natural product of this environment. I think there has been celestial intervention somewhere along the line. I know it sounds crazy but I can't see how we fit into the picture. We will destroy this planet.

Albert Doyle
07-02-2011, 07:30 PM
I think a clear look at the process will see the education suggested is supported by means of this destructive economy. Everytime you suggest a solution like education a review of the nuts and bolts of the process will show it is supported by turning up the dials on the destructive process by which to make it happen. Take the alternative energy solution for instance. If you look at the process it would require turning up the destructive economy in order to produce the wealth that would allow us to afford the alternative energy solution. Our problem is we are firmly connected to a destructive economy for everything we do. In order to solve the third world paradigm we have to induce the destructive processes that third world paradigm involves. Every move you try to make involves solving the problems of the world's majority of poor by turning up the destruction to solve their situation. China has become a very educated country compared to what it was. However it is much more environmentally destructive than it ever was. The Republicans are here to make sure people never intelligently address that situation.

Greg Burnham
07-02-2011, 08:07 PM
Mark and Albert,

What do you suggest we do to address the "problem" of over population? Shall we simply continue to allow governments the ability to fabricate pseudo-justifications for war? Or perhaps we should just manufacture justification for out right genocide in third world countries and call it that? Or maybe we can force third world inhabitants to undergo an American Sterilization Process (mandatory tube tying for females and mandatory vasectomies for males), whereby each and every one of these third world inhabitants will be prevented from producing off spring until they have repaid the money we have loaned to them plus interest? Or maybe, in a rare display of tokenism, we can sterilize them independent of the repayment of the loans to show our generosity?

Perhaps, Mark would just prefer to give up? Sounds like it. Perhaps Albert would like to blame the Republicans and then give up.

Wow.

The education of which I speak isn't all that difficult to accomplish. I am not suggesting "EDUCATION" as in brick and mortar attendance. I'm talking about sharing SIMPLE INFORMATION--stuff that we have known for a century--with those who need to know about it now. If we don't help them to learn how to make their water potable, how to voluntarily limit the size of their families, how to produce more food for themselves, how to be self sufficient and get off of the "debt wagon" that we very artfully taught them about years ago--if we don't do those things then their problems will be bound to become our problems. In my view, those problems are already our problems. We're just too afraid to do the right thing. We bought into Malthusianism over a century ago, coupled it with Darwinism and now live in fear of extinction.

Oh, and by the way: HUMANS belong on this planet. It is our home. Let's not be so self important as to believe we can destroy the planet. We cannot. That is delusional and self involved thinking. The planet has survived a lot of things many times more powerful than humans. If we screw up long enough the planet will destroy us, not the other way around.

Mark Stapleton
07-03-2011, 09:26 AM
Oh, and by the way: HUMANS belong on this planet. It is our home. Let's not be so self important as to believe we can destroy the planet. We cannot. That is delusional and self involved thinking. The planet has survived a lot of things many times more powerful than humans. If we screw up long enough the planet will destroy us, not the other way around.

We are in agreement on this. What I meant was humans will destroy life on this planet. By the time we're finished, the environment on Earth will probably resemble that of Venus.

Mark Stapleton
07-03-2011, 09:57 AM
The education of which I speak isn't all that difficult to accomplish. I am not suggesting "EDUCATION" as in brick and mortar attendance. I'm talking about sharing SIMPLE INFORMATION--stuff that we have known for a century--with those who need to know about it now. If we don't help them to learn how to make their water potable, how to voluntarily limit the size of their families, how to produce more food for themselves, how to be self sufficient and get off of the "debt wagon" that we very artfully taught them about years ago--if we don't do those things then their problems will be bound to become our problems. In my view, those problems are already our problems. We're just too afraid to do the right thing. We bought into Malthusianism over a century ago, coupled it with Darwinism and now live in fear of extinction.



All very idealistic. And patronising to boot.

For a start, you seem to think only the third world countries are travelling on the 'debt wagon'. America's private debt level currently sits at about 53 trillion dollars--dwarfing even America's massive public debt. First world countries are every bit addicted to debt as third world countries. You make the same mistake neoclassical economists make by only considering public debt and ignoring private debt.

Why would third world countries comply with pompous lecturing from first world counties who already consume far more than their fair share of the world's resources? And why should they? Sounds like a solution dreamed up by a right wing think tank.

Mark Stapleton
07-03-2011, 10:12 AM
Mark and Albert,

What do you suggest we do to address the "problem" of over population? Shall we simply continue to allow governments the ability to fabricate pseudo-justifications for war? Or perhaps we should just manufacture justification for out right genocide in third world countries and call it that? Or maybe we can force third world inhabitants to undergo an American Sterilization Process (mandatory tube tying for females and mandatory vasectomies for males), whereby each and every one of these third world inhabitants will be prevented from producing off spring until they have repaid the money we have loaned to them plus interest? Or maybe, in a rare display of tokenism, we can sterilize them independent of the repayment of the loans to show our generosity?

Perhaps, Mark would just prefer to give up? Sounds like it.

Imo, the only way the overpopulation problem can be satifactorily addressed would be by evenly redistributing the planet's wealth. Only then could measures preventing overpopulation be accepted or enforced globally.

Do you think that's going to happen? That's why I describe your post as hazy idealism.

Greg Burnham
07-03-2011, 04:30 PM
Call it idealism if you like, Mark. Feel free to exaggerate my position making it easier to defeat. But, I'm still wondering at the fact that this Malthusianistic Paradigm has been so deeply ingrained as to make it literally A FACT of life that most are unwilling to even question its validity.

If Malthus was right (which is the position you seem to have accepted) then one ends up in the world as we now know; a world of power mongers and peasants; a world in which GLOBAL solutions are suggested by many who believe that the problems are insurmountable; a world constantly engaged in several wars; a world full of conflict.

However, if Malthus was wrong (which is the position I accept) then one can envision possibilities beyond those to which we would otherwise be bound and by which we would be limited. Perhaps the overly simplistic solutions I offered as examples fail to solve the problem, but that's not the point. The point is that we are limited by the paradigms within which and from which we operate. Paradigms need to be questioned and rejected when appropriate.

So, I ask again, "Even if Malthus was right in 1798 about the world as it then existed, what if he is wrong about the world as it exists now in 2011?" After all, a whole lot has drastically changed regarding population control and food production. It is literally a different world--1798. So, I don't think my original idea is so far off the mark. And if we allow ourselves to begin by simply imagining a non-Malthusian solution may exist, we then at least have a chance to find alternative solutions that are realistic. However, if we remain married to a paradigm that is inadequate to the evidence, then we imprison our souls and shackle our minds.

Keith Millea
07-03-2011, 07:43 PM
This article seems to fit the discussion here.

Published on Sunday, July 3, 2011 by The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2015486236_peirce03.html)

Seven Billion Souls and Counting: the Perils of an Overpopulated Planet

The dangers are many — from food shortages to climate change and fears of resulting social tensions and economic crises.

by Neal Peirce (http://www.commondreams.org/author/neal-peirce)


WASHINGTON — The population of Planet Earth is now projected to pass the 7 billion mark this October — up from just 2.5 billion in 1950. One study shows that if today's explosive birthrates in developing nations continue, the African continent alone, by the end of this century, could have 15 billion people — more than twice the population of the world today.

This won't happen. As populations age and urbanize, today's fertility rates — in many poor nations an average of five, even six children for every woman — are bound to recede.

But the speed of the decline depends significantly on whether women have access to family planning and contraception services. Plus legalized abortion. Unwanted pregnancies and abortions are actually declining in countries that have made abortion legal, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Yet it notes that 70,000 women around the world die each year from illegal, often seriously botched abortions.

A closely related issue: food for our expanding billions of people. Popular "Malthusian" concerns — how many people the globe can sustain — were put to rest by the fabled Green Revolution that flowered from the 1960s onward, bringing dramatic gains in new corn, wheat and rice varieties, huge new irrigation systems, synthetic fertilizers and pesticide use.

But more crop gains — especially gains to match the world's population growth — may be seriously limited. "The great agricultural system that feeds the human race is in trouble," Justin Gillis reports in a New York Times roundup of global food issues. A special point of concern: Demand for production of four crucial staples — wheat, rice, corn and soybeans — has begun to outstrip production. Some grains more than doubled in cost in 2007 and again in the most recent price spikes.

Why is this occurring? Check your newspaper — recent weather disasters, from fires in Arizona, heat-scorched harvest loss in Russia, deep drought in Australia to record-setting floods in Pakistan and right now in North America. Plus melting glaciers and rising tornado, typhoon and hurricane threats. Add to that fresh indication that the rising carbon-dioxide levels of a warming climate will not, as many scientists had projected, necessarily act as a plant fertilizer and help raise yields.

But the world's population plays a major role too. In 1960, the Population Press reports, there were 1.2 acres of good cropland for each person in the world. Today that figure has shrunk to half an acre per person — in China a quarter acre, a decline compounded by soil degradation.

Nothing in human or natural life is infinite: One day world population must and will stop expanding. Yet there's remarkably little U.S. or global discussion of the perils in today's rising world population — to food, to climate, and in fomenting social tensions and economic crises.

The Copenhagen summit, for example, produced no mention of population issues. British broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough suggests there's a "bizarre taboo" around population, as if it's "not PC, possibly even racist to mention it."
And in U.S. politics, the debate (and apparent new Republican orthodoxy) focuses on "right to life" anti-abortion politics as if population issues were virtually nonexistent. The House of Representatives in February actually voted to reinstate the so-called "gag rule" — denying foreign organizations receiving U.S. family-planning assistance the right to use their own non-U.S. funds to advocate for, or provide information and referrals for, legal abortions.

First imposed by President Reagan in 1984, the gag rule was rescinded by President Clinton, reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001, then lifted by President Obama when he took office. When it's in effect, vast numbers of women worldwide are denied community-based reproductive-health counseling, resulting in dangerous abortions by untrained providers.

On top of that, there's now strong Republican pressure to cut deeply into the core federal budget allocations for international family planning and reproductive health — at $615 million a year, a tiny fraction of what we spend for our foreign wars.

The United States has its population challenges at home — building the infrastructure, from schools to roads to food supply — for a predicted 100 million more people by 2040. Preparing for an expanded nation, including a proposed national infrastructure bank, needs to be accelerated — right now.

Locally, there are sparks of good news — inventive new ways to build metropolitan economies, reduce regional carbon emissions, cope with schooling and social issues — topics I often cover in this column.

But there's an alarming possibility: that our best community efforts may be stopgaps, even canceled out, until national policy turns from denial to engagement on the pressing global issues of global population, food and climate change — the very basics of life on Earth.

© 2011 Neal Peirce


A closely related issue: food for our expanding billions of people. Popular "Malthusian" concerns — how many people the globe can sustain — were put to rest by the fabled Green Revolution that flowered from the 1960s onward, bringing dramatic gains in new corn, wheat and rice varieties, huge new irrigation systems, synthetic fertilizers and pesticide use.


This is an interesting and confusing paragraph.The author seems to think we have pretty much put the Malthusian paradigm to rest.And,why the heck he conflates the green revolution of the sixties,with pesticides, non-organic fertilizers,and God forbid,Monsantos engineered seeds,is rather mind boggling.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/03-1

Jan Klimkowski
07-04-2011, 04:50 PM
A closely related issue: food for our expanding billions of people. Popular "Malthusian" concerns — how many people the globe can sustain — were put to rest by the fabled Green Revolution that flowered from the 1960s onward, bringing dramatic gains in new corn, wheat and rice varieties, huge new irrigation systems, synthetic fertilizers and pesticide use.


This is an interesting and confusing paragraph.The author seems to think we have pretty much put the Malthusian paradigm to rest.And,why the heck he conflates the green revolution of the sixties,with pesticides, non-organic fertilizers,and God forbid,Monsantos engineered seeds,is rather mind boggling.



Keith - agreed. Indeed, the entire article is a mess, with initiatives and concepts only half understood and often misinterpreted.

The position of America's Republican party is particularly badly represented.

Whilst the Republicans have pandered to their anti-abortion Christian base over international funding of abortion, the right has frequently facilitated extreme and dangerous population control methods, such as experimental chemical sterilization agents. Field use in the developing world of such dangerous techniques has often been achieved using right-wing foundations as cut-outs.

Indeed, it's highly likely that the Bush family - like many affluent WASP families - is essentially eugenicist in outlook.

I'm not sure what is more pathetic: the view that "Aryan DNA" is inherently superior or the view that "WASP DNA" is the path to global prosperity and enlightenment.

Greg Burnham
07-04-2011, 08:04 PM
A closely related issue: food for our expanding billions of people. Popular "Malthusian" concerns — how many people the globe can sustain — were put to rest by the fabled Green Revolution that flowered from the 1960s onward, bringing dramatic gains in new corn, wheat and rice varieties, huge new irrigation systems, synthetic fertilizers and pesticide use.


This is an interesting and confusing paragraph.The author seems to think we have pretty much put the Malthusian paradigm to rest.And,why the heck he conflates the green revolution of the sixties,with pesticides, non-organic fertilizers,and God forbid,Monsantos engineered seeds,is rather mind boggling.



Keith - agreed. Indeed, the entire article is a mess, with initiatives and concepts only half understood and often misinterpreted.

The position of America's Republican party is particularly badly represented.

Whilst the Republicans have pandered to their anti-abortion Christian base over international funding of abortion, the right has frequently facilitated extreme and dangerous population control methods, such as experimental chemical sterilization agents. Field use in the developing world of such dangerous techniques has often been achieved using right-wing foundations as cut-outs.

Indeed, it's highly likely that the Bush family - like many affluent WASP families - is essentially eugenicist in outlook.

I'm not sure what is more pathetic: the view that "Aryan DNA" is inherently superior or the view that "WASP DNA" is the path to global prosperity and enlightenment.

I agree. The article is very ambiguous over-all and the conclusion reached is not only poorly reasoned, but obscurely defined.

I appreciate the significance of your comments, Jan.

It's interesting to note that the vast majority of species inhabiting this planet (of which we are aware) refrain from killing their own kind. When an animal kills prey, for instance, others of the same species do not come and engage the "owner of the meal" in mortal combat over it. They may have a conflict, even a fight, but never to the death. As an example, many butt their heads together until one calls it a day and moves on. We see similar behavior from male animals competing for females in the wild. Many literally back up and slam their heads together until one says, "Take her..I have a headache now anyway..." and that's the end of it. But not humans. We will kill each other as though that meal that our fellow human being has earned the right to consume is the LAST opportunity to eat! We will kill for it.

Perhaps animals realize that there really is enough to go around. The lion knows that there is another wildebeest (or other source of protein) nearby--so he does not need to fight to the death with his own species. Has anyone ever known a person who found a single roach in a closet and, upon killing it, exclaimed: "I'm just so glad that was the only one"? Roaches do not come singularly...nor do sources of food. Not in 2011.

If the resources needed by humans are truly being tapped beyond sustainability, then perhaps it is just time for us to go extinct. That's the way it is for other species, why not us, too? The idea that we can somehow manage and preserve a Malthusian "unsustainable environment" by killing each other is simply absurd, in my view.

But, what if there are other choices? What if...?

Jan Klimkowski
07-04-2011, 08:30 PM
Greg - another fine post.

Delve deep into the the European and American population control organisations of the C20th and you always find the same secret philosophical core: EUGENICS.

European royals are often involved in such movements. And yet European royal familes are almost always vast, and they spread their seed still further through numerous illegitimate offspring. (Check out the Prince of Monaco's latest escapades.)

Their overt claim is: we must control population to save the planet.

Their covert belief is: our blood is superior to yours.

Keith Millea
07-05-2011, 12:34 AM
If the resources needed by humans are truly being tapped beyond sustainability, then perhaps it is just time for us to go extinct. That's the way it is for other species, why not us, too? The idea that we can somehow manage and preserve a Malthusian "unsustainable environment" by killing each other is simply absurd, in my view.

But, what if there are other choices? What if...?

I think Timothy Leary was pondering these same ideas,and,eventually came to the conclusion that Space Migration would be a good "other choice". :bolt:

Greg Burnham
07-05-2011, 01:49 AM
If the resources needed by humans are truly being tapped beyond sustainability, then perhaps it is just time for us to go extinct. That's the way it is for other species, why not us, too? The idea that we can somehow manage and preserve a Malthusian "unsustainable environment" by killing each other is simply absurd, in my view.

But, what if there are other choices? What if...?

I think Timothy Leary was pondering these same ideas,and,eventually came to the conclusion that Space Migration would be a good "other choice". :bolt:

Sorry Keith,

You lost me on that one. I'm uncertain as to the probability of long range space travel--from or to--planet Earth. I also tend to be skeptical about the opinions of a known--and self-proclaimed--LSD user.

Use of psychedelics does not automatically disqualify Leary's claims, but your having attempted to associate my statements with his claims is inappropriate. They are not related in the least.

Greg Burnham
07-05-2011, 02:03 AM
Greg - another fine post.

Delve deep into the the European and American population control organisations of the C20th and you always find the same secret philosophical core: EUGENICS.

European royals are often involved in such movements. And yet European royal familes are almost always vast, and they spread their seed still further through numerous illegitimate offspring. (Check out the Prince of Monaco's latest escapades.)

Their overt claim is: we must control population to save the planet.

Their covert belief is: our blood is superior to yours.

Very astute observations, Jan, IMO. Is it not amazing to note that: "If there is indeed enough to go around..." then the question of "whose blood is better than whose...?" is of no consequence! But, if there is an insufficient supply of resources to go around, then it is a foregone conclusion that "some will have to do without" -- right? And who will those unfortunate souls be, pray tell? "They will NOT BE US"--is the answer!

I find that to be a grossly inadequate answer and a morally apathetic stance to embrace.

But, what if there is enough to go around? What if?

Keith Millea
07-05-2011, 04:08 AM
Sorry Keith,

You lost me on that one. I'm uncertain as to the probability of long range space travel--from or to--planet Earth. I also tend to be skeptical about the opinions of a known--and self-proclaimed--LSD user.

Use of psychedelics does not automatically disqualify Leary's claims, but your having attempted to associate my statements with his claims is inappropriate. They are not related in the least.

Greg,

I'm sorry if I lost you.It's a holiday,and my post was made in a lighthearted manner.I can understand your sensitivities,and will be more watchful of what I say in your posts.

Keith

Magda Hassan
07-05-2011, 09:45 AM
If the resources needed by humans are truly being tapped beyond sustainability, then perhaps it is just time for us to go extinct. That's the way it is for other species, why not us, too? The idea that we can somehow manage and preserve a Malthusian "unsustainable environment" by killing each other is simply absurd, in my view.

But, what if there are other choices? What if...? I think Timothy Leary was pondering these same ideas,and,eventually came to the conclusion that Space Migration would be a good "other choice". :bolt:
I know you were jesting Keith but I think Leary was genuine. He was really keen on all that space travel stuff in his later years. I find it a bit hard to comprehend as I quite like my home and don't see the attraction of venturing off into a vacuum looking for some where else to start all over again and real space travel seems such a let down after all that inner space travel. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iab9YKocUcw)But as I some times mutter to myself "If they can send one man to the moon why can't they send them all?" I can think of a few I would volunteer for a one way rocket trip.

Sorry Greg, to divert the thread. I actually think there is enough resources for the planets as it stands. It is a matter of distribution on a matter of need. Education, particularly of women, results in smaller familes. But i don't see the resources going into education. It seems to be that the new economy is based on war production with regular human sacrifices.

Mark Stapleton
07-05-2011, 04:10 PM
Call it idealism if you like, Mark. Feel free to exaggerate my position making it easier to defeat. But, I'm still wondering at the fact that this Malthusianistic Paradigm has been so deeply ingrained as to make it literally A FACT of life that most are unwilling to even question its validity.

If Malthus was right (which is the position you seem to have accepted) then one ends up in the world as we now know; a world of power mongers and peasants; a world in which GLOBAL solutions are suggested by many who believe that the problems are insurmountable; a world constantly engaged in several wars; a world full of conflict.

However, if Malthus was wrong (which is the position I accept) then one can envision possibilities beyond those to which we would otherwise be bound and by which we would be limited. Perhaps the overly simplistic solutions I offered as examples fail to solve the problem, but that's not the point. The point is that we are limited by the paradigms within which and from which we operate. Paradigms need to be questioned and rejected when appropriate.

So, I ask again, "Even if Malthus was right in 1798 about the world as it then existed, what if he is wrong about the world as it exists now in 2011?" After all, a whole lot has drastically changed regarding population control and food production. It is literally a different world--1798. So, I don't think my original idea is so far off the mark. And if we allow ourselves to begin by simply imagining a non-Malthusian solution may exist, we then at least have a chance to find alternative solutions that are realistic. However, if we remain married to a paradigm that is inadequate to the evidence, then we imprison our souls and shackle our minds.


I'm not even interested in whether Malthus was right or wrong.

I'm simply making the observation that human population is expanding at an unsustainable rate. It has more than doubled just in my lifetime. Some view a continuously expanding human population--matched by ingenious technological advances in medicine and food production--as some kind of dreamy utopian ideal. Advocates of this position seem to think we are the only life form on this planet. I see it as a disaster for life on the planet because it necessitates the destruction of habitat for other species.

One only has to look at the current extinction rates for other species, coupled with environmental degradation caused by overpopulation to realise that something is seriously wrong here.

I don't advocate any form of human population control, eugenics, soylent green or any other contrived restraints on population growth.

I just make the observation that, although humans are part of the carbon cycle of life that exists on this planet, we are still not really natural. We don't exist in harmony with nature, we destroy nature. Unlike other species, we don't appear to serve a useful role.

Greg Burnham
07-05-2011, 05:58 PM
Sorry Keith,

You lost me on that one. I'm uncertain as to the probability of long range space travel--from or to--planet Earth. I also tend to be skeptical about the opinions of a known--and self-proclaimed--LSD user.

Use of psychedelics does not automatically disqualify Leary's claims, but your having attempted to associate my statements with his claims is inappropriate. They are not related in the least.

Greg,

I'm sorry if I lost you.It's a holiday,and my post was made in a lighthearted manner.I can understand your sensitivities,and will be more watchful of what I say in your posts.

Keith

No problem, Keith. I was obviously confused. Don't worry, I'm not usually so slow.

Greg Burnham
07-05-2011, 06:14 PM
I'm not even interested in whether Malthus was right or wrong.

Ok. Fair enough. I now better understand why there's been a disconnect. In my view, we are subject to the parameters set by the paradigms that we hold as true. Whether or not we are aware of or acknowledge the existence of those paradigms makes no difference: we are still ruled by them.



I'm simply making the observation that human population is expanding at an unsustainable rate.

I think that statement demonstrates that you do, in fact, believe Malthus was correct, just as most everyone in the west so believes, thus your choice of the word "unsustainable" --


It has more than doubled just in my lifetime. Some view a continuously expanding human population--matched by ingenious technological advances in medicine and food production--as some kind of dreamy utopian ideal. Advocates of this position seem to think we are the only life form on this planet. I see it as a disaster for life on the planet because it necessitates the destruction of habitat for other species.

I think that there are numerous reasons that the PLANET causes certain species to become extinct and that HUMANS are only one of many contributing factors to that extinction, with few exceptions.


One only has to look at the current extinction rates for other species, coupled with environmental degradation caused by overpopulation to realise that something is seriously wrong here.

I don't advocate any form of human population control, eugenics, soylent green or any other contrived restraints on population growth.

Yet, if we don't have a plan to control population VOLUNTARILY by the individual, will we just accept this Malthusian determinism and give up? To me that's where information sharing (which I was calling education) is absolutely essential.


I just make the observation that, although humans are part of the carbon cycle of life that exists on this planet, we are still not really natural. We don't exist in harmony with nature, we destroy nature.

I couldn't disagree with you more. We are of this planet. We are therefore NATURAL to it and everything we do is natural. However, not everything we do is to our own benefit nor is it always to the benefit of other species. But, we cannot destroy nature--that is absurd. We are subservient to nature and to the planet, not the other way around.


Unlike other species, we don't appear to serve a useful role.

George Carlin once said [paraphrased]:

"For all we know planet Earth needed plastic! Don't ask me why, but maybe this planet just needed plastic for reasons beyond our comprehension and THAT'S why we're here!"

Mark Stapleton
07-06-2011, 03:42 PM
I couldn't disagree with you more. We are of this planet. We are therefore NATURAL to it and everything we do is natural. However, not everything we do is to our own benefit nor is it always to the benefit of other species. But, we cannot destroy nature--that is absurd. We are subservient to nature and to the planet, not the other way around.



But we can destroy nature. We have the power to destroy the environment for almost every creature on the planet, including us. In fact, we may even have the power to blow the whole planet to smithereens. That's my point. Why do we have this power? All other life forms play a constructive role in sustaining the planet, but we don't. Our role appears to be destructive.

You say "We are of this planet. We are therefore NATURAL to it and everything we do is natural". I disagree. It doesn't necessarily follow.

Nature never grants one species the intelligence to destroy all other species. Nature has given all other species the intelligence to survive within their own environment, nothing more.

Why has nature given us alone the intelligence to do this?

It doesn't seem natural to me.

Greg Burnham
07-07-2011, 09:17 AM
I couldn't disagree with you more. We are of this planet. We are therefore NATURAL to it and everything we do is natural. However, not everything we do is to our own benefit nor is it always to the benefit of other species. But, we cannot destroy nature--that is absurd. We are subservient to nature and to the planet, not the other way around.



But we can destroy nature. We have the power to destroy the environment for almost every creature on the planet, including us. In fact, we may even have the power to blow the whole planet to smithereens. That's my point. Why do we have this power? All other life forms play a constructive role in sustaining the planet, but we don't. Our role appears to be destructive.

How do termites, for instance, help to sustain the planet, Mark? Roaches? I could go on, but you get the point.


You say "We are of this planet. We are therefore NATURAL to it and everything we do is natural". I disagree. It doesn't necessarily follow.

How do you figure, that: "it doesn't follow..." -- Unless you are willing to toss out the idea of evolution completely, then we are natural to the planet.


Nature never grants one species the intelligence to destroy all other species. Nature has given all other species the intelligence to survive within their own environment, nothing more.

Why has nature given us alone the intelligence to do this?

It doesn't seem natural to me.

If we venture away from this planet without bringing enough of it (food, water, air) with us, we perish very quickly. Without air alone from this planet we will be dead within minutes; without water from this planet we'll be dead in days or weeks; without food, dead in weeks or months...at the most.

That would rather seem a very good example of our dependence upon this planet, our subservience to it, and its ability to destroy us in short order.

Mark Stapleton
07-08-2011, 05:11 PM
[QUOTE=Mark Stapleton;41149How do termites, for instance, help to sustain the planet, Mark? Roaches? I could go on, but you get the point.




No I don't get your point.

Termites and roaches play a role within their ecosystems. Thus they help sustain the planet.

Mark Stapleton
07-08-2011, 05:33 PM
[How do you figure, that: "it doesn't follow..." -- Unless you are willing to toss out the idea of evolution completely, then we are natural to the planet.



I said it doesn't necessarily follow. Nice omission.

I think we are an amalgum of an indigenous species and an alien one. I think alien genes are in us.

Mankind's rapid dominance of the planet doesn't seem logical or normal. Just my opinion.

Mark Stapleton
07-08-2011, 05:37 PM
[If we venture away from this planet without bringing enough of it (food, water, air) with us, we perish very quickly. Without air alone from this planet we will be dead within minutes; without water from this planet we'll be dead in days or weeks; without food, dead in weeks or months...at the most.

That would rather seem a very good example of our dependence upon this planet, our subservience to it, and its ability to destroy us in short order.

Yes we survive within the carbon cycle of Earth, as I said earlier.

Thanks for the bulletin.

Greg Burnham
07-08-2011, 09:30 PM
How do termites, for instance, help to sustain the planet, Mark? Roaches? I could go on, but you get the point.

No I don't get your point.

Termites and roaches play a role within their ecosystems. Thus they help sustain the planet.

What role do they play, Mark? Termites destroy trees. Humans destroy trees, too. Roaches scavenge the food of other species. Humans rarely, if ever, do that.

It could be argued that the alleged increase of C02 attributed to humans into the atmosphere BENEFITS nearly all forms of life, particularly CARBON BASED life, such as trees and other forms of vegetation. Thus, we too help sustain the FOOD SUPPLY of the planet. Unless, of course, you don't believe that we contribute to C02 in the atmosphere in a significant way. (BTW: I don't think we do either.) But, most people think that humans contribute too much C02 into the atmosphere. If you think we do, tell me how this is negative for PLANT life?

Greg Burnham
07-08-2011, 09:36 PM
[How do you figure, that: "it doesn't follow..." -- Unless you are willing to toss out the idea of evolution completely, then we are natural to the planet.



I said it doesn't necessarily follow. Nice omission.

I think we are an amalgum of an indigenous species and an alien one. I think alien genes are in us.

Mankind's rapid dominance of the planet doesn't seem logical or normal. Just my opinion.

My apologies. I didn't intentionally misquote you. So, it necessarily follows that IF WE EVOLVED from the planet (even with alien cross-breeding), then we are natural to it, no?

The universe obviously allowed us to become natives of this place, right? I was BORN here! I don't feel the need to justify my existence here, nor do I feel the need to make excuses for our learning curve in discovering how to survive here.

I just think that accepted paradigms that were first introduced in an age predating modern science need to be re-evaluated and rejected if they fail to solve problems. Malthusianism FAILS.

Gary Severson
07-27-2011, 03:45 AM
I don't think I want to go there again Greg but here's my 2 cents. This from the journal NEW SCIENTIST



This expression is often attributed to Charles Darwin and, although it appears in the fifth edition of his Origin of Species, 1869, it is there attributed to Herbert Spencer:

"The expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the survival of the fittest is more accurate..."
Spencer had published The principles of biology in 1864. In that he referred to 'survival of the fittest' twice:

"This survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the fittest."
"This survival of the fittest... is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life'."
By 'fittest', of course, Spencer and Darwin didn't have in mind the commonly used meaning of the word now, i.e. the most highly trained and physically energetic. The 'fittest' referred to here are those animals which are the most suited to their environment, i.e. those which are best fitted to survive.

Greg Burnham
07-27-2011, 04:12 AM
The 'fittest' referred to here are those animals which are the most suited to their environment, i.e. those which are best fitted to survive.

I agree, but I would further add that the "fittest" animals are those that are the most likely to survive long (and well) enough to procreate and to procreate multiple times, thus extending their genetic lines into the future for generations. Those with the "weakest" genetic traits survive the shortest amount of time and/or do not survive well enough to procreate and/or are unable to provide for the survival of their offspring if they do.

Gary Severson
07-27-2011, 04:41 AM
The 'fittest' referred to here are those animals which are the most suited to their environment, i.e. those which are best fitted to survive.

I agree, but I would further add that the "fittest" animals are those that are the most likely to survive long (and well) enough to procreate and to procreate multiple times, thus extending their genetic lines into the future for generations. Those with the "weakest" genetic traits survive the shortest amount of time and/or do not survive well enough to procreate and/or are unable to provide for the survival of their offspring if they do.

I've heard it said that humans are an exception to "survival of the fittest" since civilization & its economic structures cancels many positive potential circumstances. IOW offspring are born into human structures they have no control over like poverty so even though they may have survivability it is neutralized by extreme negative factors.

Mark Stapleton
08-08-2011, 02:44 PM
What role do they play, Mark? Termites destroy trees. Humans destroy trees, too. Roaches scavenge the food of other species. Humans rarely, if ever, do that.



Termites play an important ecological role by recycling dead plant matter, especially in the rainforest environment.

You seem to be arguing from an entirely human growth perspective. You're almost fanatical about that.

Carpeting the planet with human beings will decimate other species and eventually lead to our own demise. There won't be any food for a start.

Greg Burnham
08-08-2011, 03:36 PM
What role do they play, Mark? Termites destroy trees. Humans destroy trees, too. Roaches scavenge the food of other species. Humans rarely, if ever, do that.



Termites play an important ecological role by recycling dead plant matter, especially in the rainforest environment.

You seem to be arguing from an entirely human growth perspective. You're almost fanatical about that.

Carpeting the planet with human beings will decimate other species and eventually lead to our own demise. There won't be any food for a start.

Perhaps I argue from a human perspective because I am human. Look, I don't encourage pollution, hunting a species to extinction, proliferation of nukes, irresponsible reproduction of human life, and many other things that you probably discourage as well. However, the "alarmism" around Malthusian over population models tends to PROMOTE war, not abate it; tends to promote the hunting of species to extinction, not preserve it; tends to produce government policies wherein the conglomerate farming corporations are paid by the government NOT to grow food in order to increase the value of the shareholders stock; tends to spend billions of research dollars in pseudo attempts to cure diseases that are secretly believed to be needed in order to control population growth in third world countries; and on and on and on and on.

If we believe that population growth is an unsolvable problem--or is a problem worth ALARM--we will tend to go along with the existing program that does NOT work. We will do this if for no other reason than we will continue to fail to think for ourselves and fail to think outside the box.

Gary Severson
08-08-2011, 05:46 PM
Mark, to understand the deniers you have to think like the real estate industry. IOW, any slowing in the rate of growth means less land developed and a less healthy real estate industry.

Greg Burnham
08-08-2011, 06:17 PM
To understand the alarmists you have to be driven by emotion; devoid of enough autonomy to allow the questioning of authority; sorely lacking in common sense; be a "doom and gloom" promoter; love to criticize, but hate to provide alternatives; possess so little self respect as to not care if one's argument is fallacious, off topic, or otherwise irrelevant, so long as it is sufficiently catastrophic; be too shallow to comprehend DEEP POLITICAL agendas; and, whenever messages are unassailable, be willing to directly or indirectly attack the messenger instead...

Gary Severson
08-08-2011, 09:04 PM
Yes , 1000s of scientists worldwide, socialist & capitalist, fit that description. It is illogical to accuse such a wide sampling of scientists of alarmism.

Greg Burnham
08-09-2011, 04:09 AM
I did not accuse anybody in any group of anything. If they are not alarmists, then it does not apply to them. If they are alarmists it does.

It's the same the other way around, too. Just because I am the CEO of a Real Estate firm in San Diego, doesn't necessarily mean that I fit into your stereotype. Oh, and BTW: "industries" don't think. People within them do. But, even so, I do not think the way you suggest.

Ed Jewett
08-12-2011, 04:43 PM
Depopulation: The FDA Is Directly Connected To The Modern Day Eugenics Movement


Alex Thomas

Co Founder of The Intel Hub

Today we published an extremely important article on the FDA and their connection the the modern day eugenics movement. As we continue to see the FDA attack healthy foods by carrying out armed raids against raw food buying clubs while at the same approving toxic chemicals such as aspartame and MSG to be used in our food, one has to wonder WHY?

Is this all for money? Is the FDA simply bought out or is there an even more sinister reason for their open approval of toxins and attack on healthy foods?

It turns out FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg parents actually headed up the American Eugenics Society!

This information, coupled with the fact that many people that work in the FDA have connections to Monsanto and their GMO foods paints a clear picture.

For a brief history of eugenics:

The Revitalized Eugenics Movement & the FDA’s Role

The goal of eugenics is to utilize science to improve the genetic composition of a population. The elite eugenics ruling class is terrified of rapid population growth in “undesirable genetic stock.”

Their efforts are focused on controlling rapid population growth in developing countries, such as African nations, and in minority groups in the United States and other developed countries.

The “scientific” theory of eugenics originated in the 19th century with the works of Charles Darwin and others. Its theory was adopted as a core principle of genetic research by The Rockefeller University, Carnegie Institution for Science, and others at the beginning of the 20th century.

It was openly promoted and discussed for the first four decades of the 20th century. It even gained a supportive Supreme Court ruling in 1927 which allowed for sterilization of mental health patients. Moreover, American eugenics-oriented psychiatrists continued to force sterilization on mental health patients into the 1970s.

Beginning in 1910 and ending in 1944, a massive database of genetic information on Americans and related eugenics articles were collected in a Rockefeller and Carnegie-funded data repository known as the Eugenics Record Office.

WWII sent the public face and target of eugenics to scurry for cover as Hitler applied the theory to the Jews, giving the eugenics movement a major black eye. However, behind the scenes, American psychiatrists, German psychiatrists, and the heads of Rockefeller maintained their close working relationships.

At the conclusion of WWII, the Rockefellers allotted land in New York City to house the United Nations (UN), an organization founded on the core beliefs of the elite eugenics thinkers.

theintelhub.com/2011/08/11/the-revitalized-eugenics-movement-the-fda%E2%80%99s-role/
And now for the modern emergence of the Eugenics movement:

A seismic shift is now occurring in the forces that will control health care in the United States and around the world. It is a shift in power away from the World Health Organization (WHO) and into a new alliance of wealthy governments (the G8), United Nations groups, and elite international non-governmental power brokers such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

American taxpayers should be alarmed. This means that tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars for “humanitarian” foreign aide is being spent on objectives never approved by Congress. Americans should pay attention when Bill Gates makes very public proclamations about the need to reduce the surplus population.

In February of 2010, Bill Gates explained that there are just too many humans, as a key mathematical variable, involved in CO2 and global warming. He thinks that a global effort on population control, utilizing vaccines and birth control, can reduce the projected African population by one billion people in year 2050.

This requires many tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to accomplish. The short version or long version of his speech is available to view on YouTube.

His theory that overpopulation is a primary source for the cause of global warming has also been presented in a 2009 report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population, and Climate.” UNFPA is an example of a United Nations group that is helping to coordinate the spending of billions in U.S. taxpayer funds to accomplish the global elitist eugenics agenda.

And now we have the connection to the FDA. Remember this is an actual government agency.

One of the leading scientific thinkers on the subject of eugenics in the second half of the 20th century is FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg’s father, psychiatrist David Hamburg, as well as her psychiatrist mother Beatrix Hamburg.

David Hamburg has had a major impact on U.S. government domestic public health as well as international public health and politics. He has been head of the National Institute of Health (NIH) from 1975 to 1980, member of the U.S. Defense Policy Board during the Clinton era, member of president Clinton’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Preventive Action of the Council on Foreign Relations—to name just a few of his involvements.

Omitted from his official bio is his role as director from 1989 to 1991 at the American Eugenics Society (renamed the Society for the Study of Social Biology, SSSB). His wife, Beatrix, served as director in 1983 and as vice president from 1984 to 1990.

Much of David Hamburg’s work has been funded as a result of his role as President of the Carnegie Corporation of New York from 1982 to 1997, where he retains the title, President Emeritus. The consortium of entities under the Rockefeller and Carnegie banners do many things to accomplish the political and social structure to facilitate a New World Order.

Thyroid Helper – The High Quality Natural Thyroid Supplement Now 20% Off(Ad)

This has included significant national and global financial support for eugenics and programs that promote eugenics philosophy.

David Hamburg’s early training in genetics and psychiatry exposed him to the eugenics theory of his time. In a 1979 speech to the American Public Health Association, he emphasized, as head of NIH, the need to reduce population as part of preventive health. He declared, “The adverse effects of exceedingly rapid population growth are not only those affecting health, but also education, economic development, resource depletion, pollution, conflict and violence.

Thus, in an increasingly independent world, the technically advanced nations cannot afford to overlook these problems which are so burdensome for most of the less developed countries. This involves biomedical and behavioral sciences, in international collaborative efforts. Some promising lines of inquiry deserve consideration here…to make possible an array of contraceptive techniques and relate these to cultural preferences with respect to acceptability. A practical approach to pregnancy interruption is emerging.”

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg is quite proud of her parents, and her record as New York City Health Commissioner shows she is on the same page as Mom and Dad. When Margaret Hamburg joined her parents in 1994 as one of the all-time youngest members of NIH, she said, “There was a sense of real fun that the father-mother-daughter constellation had been formed.”

For further information please read the entire article here: http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/11/the-revitalized-eugenics-movement-the-fda’s-role/

We live in a world where eugenicsts are openly planning to depopulate the world. This isnt a conspiracy theory! These people are TELLING US what they are going to do, how can it possibly be a conspiracy theory to warn the population about what a group of people is saying?

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/940/075/Depopulation:_The_FDA_Is_Directly_Connected_To_The _Modern_Day_Eugenics_Movement.html

Greg Burnham
08-12-2011, 07:50 PM
Excellent post, Ed.

Gary Severson
08-13-2011, 01:36 AM
Maybe we should just through JFK into the bunch of eugenicists since he was at the founding of the UN in San Fran. & believed it was our best hope for world peace.

Ed Jewett
08-13-2011, 03:55 AM
Maybe we should just through JFK into the bunch of eugenicists since he was at the founding of the UN in San Fran. & believed it was our best hope for world peace.

Go ahead and make the case.


I wonder what he would think about the X-37B, the Falcon Hypersonic X-51 Waverider, the USAF and religion, torture, the taking of trophy fingers, our remote Predator-y "Chair Force", assassination squads, special ops troops in over 100 countries, or the use of phosphorus, DU and mutagenic warfare.

From what I gather, though I have not read the book "Mary's Mosaic", the man had a life-changing transformation by whatever agency or agent.

"It makes no sense...", he said, "For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal."

Shades of Ernest Becker...

Gary Severson
08-13-2011, 05:40 PM
Well, of course I'm saying JFK was in favor of the UN and saw it as the best way to achieve world peace. I happen to agree with that which I don't think you do on the basis of your post which rips the UN as part of the eugenics movement.

Ed Jewett
08-13-2011, 07:26 PM
Well, of course I'm saying JFK was in favor of the UN and saw it as the best way to achieve world peace. I happen to agree with that which I don't think you do on the basis of your post which rips the UN as part of the eugenics movement.

That's a whole 'nuther thread. Be careful with your assumptions.

How is the UN doing so far on that movement to achieve world peace?

Gary Severson
08-13-2011, 10:26 PM
What assumptions Ed? Read about the UN and JFK in James Douglas' "JFK & the UNSPEAKABLE". I asked Ted Sorensen what he thought JFK would think about man made global warming. He said without a doubt he would think man was the source of warming. I guess the UN's attempts to stop global warming would get JFK's applause.

Greg Burnham
08-13-2011, 11:04 PM
What assumptions Ed? Read about the UN and JFK in James Douglas' "JFK & the UNSPEAKABLE". I asked Ted Sorensen what he thought JFK would think about man made global warming. He said without a doubt he would think man was the source of warming. I guess the UN's attempts to stop global warming would get JFK's applause.

Gimme a break, Gary. If Sorensen said what you claimed he said, it is speculation only. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Sorensen to predict what JFK would have thought about a subject that was not relevant during his (JFK's) lifetime. For him to predict what JFK would think of such a subject, nearly 50 years after he died, is highly specious! Either Sorensen did not say what you claim he said or Sorensen was speaking in suppositions. I've seen you conveniently discard logic and critical thinking to serve your purposes before. I'm not buying it for a second.

Gary Severson
08-14-2011, 02:30 AM
How could I have discarded logic before when I've only reported what scientists have researched. It has never been my logic to discard. What incidences are you referring to in any case?
It goes without saying that Sorensen would be saying something as conjecture about JFK's position on an issue that wasn't big at the time. But the fact that he knew JFK as much as anybody is a pretty good bet that he knew what JFK would have thought. It is interesting that you are so threatened by the possibility that JFK held some position in favor of an issue (MMGW) that you are so passionately against. I suppose you'd say too that JFK didn't feel the way about the UN that Douglas says he did.

Ed Jewett
08-14-2011, 05:48 AM
What assumptions Ed? Read about the UN and JFK in James Douglas' "JFK & the UNSPEAKABLE". I asked Ted Sorensen what he thought JFK would think about man made global warming. He said without a doubt he would think man was the source of warming. I guess the UN's attempts to stop global warming would get JFK's applause.

You are going to have to be more specific, Gary. I own both versions of the book and the UN doesn't show up as an indexed item in either one of them. I do see references to two speeches JFK gave at the UN on nuclear test-ban treaties and nuclear disarmament. Was he lobbying for nuclear proliferation? Did he authorize the development of mutagenic warfare?

I don't see how this demonstrates that JFK should be considered a eugenicist. I don't see eugenics noted in the JFKU index either. If you are suggesting that JFK is a eugenicist because he was aware of the explosion in world population, that is fine; but that awareness doesn't make him a eugenicist. If you have something more, put it on the table; it'll be news to me. And I'd like to hear the logic spelled out, if you don't mind.

There's lots of information suggesting that a lot of people who would make the list of mechanics, facilitators or sponsors of JFK's assassination were oriented that way, but why would they kill one of their own ensconced in the White House and who was working on preventing nuclear holocaust?

And I'd like to hear the logic you used to derive the supposition that JFK was a eugenicist from the article I posted. Spell it out and parse it for those of us who are less adept at seeing these things.

Greg Burnham
08-14-2011, 03:47 PM
How could I have discarded logic before when I've only reported what scientists have researched. It has never been my logic to discard. What incidences are you referring to in any case?

Logic belongs to no one, Gary. It makes no difference whether the argument was authored by you or by a scientist, if it is illogical it remains illogical irrespective of authorship.


It goes without saying that Sorensen would be saying something as conjecture about JFK's position on an issue that wasn't big at the time. But the fact that he knew JFK as much as anybody is a pretty good bet that he knew what JFK would have thought.

Not necessarily true, Gary. I'm not buying it.


It is interesting that you are so threatened by the possibility that JFK held some position in favor of an issue (MMGW) that you are so passionately against. I suppose you'd say too that JFK didn't feel the way about the UN that Douglas says he did.

You are way off topic, Gary. This has nothing to do with JFK's views about anything. If it did I would have started the thread under a JFK forum. But, even if it was on topic, I really can't reliably predict what JFK's view on this subject would be, in any event... and neither can you and neither can Sorensen.

It is nearly as impossible to be clairvoyant enough to know JFK's post-mortem position on this subject as it is to predict the future global CLIMATE! Because the weather and climate is a CHAOTIC, random, non-linear, complex system it would be even more improbable than predicting a dead man's opinion nearly 50 years later!

Gary Severson
08-14-2011, 03:50 PM
Geez Ed, it seems you're not reading my posts . I was being sarcastic. I believe you guys are connecting the UN & the eugenics movement therefore since JFK was an ardent supporter of the UN he would fit right in to the eugenics movement using the guilt by association method you seem to have used to implicate the FDA in the same.

Jan Klimkowski
08-14-2011, 04:08 PM
Gentlemen - let's chill please, I'm not sure this argument is going anywhere.

The "perfection of the human species" through Eugenics was a widely held belief amongst "intellectuals" in the first half of the C20th. It was also clearly and demonstrably at the root of much of the international birth control movement, particularly the foundations which promoted sterilization of those they determined to be "unfit".

My own judgement, based on research and some original investigation, is that eugenic beliefs are still widespread in ruling circles. Widespread, but unspoken. The Nazi genocide of Jews and Gypsies made it impossible for those eugenic principles to be openly articulated.

Elite statements about "useless eaters" typically give the game away.

Have certain UN programmes appeared to further eugenic aims? Yes.

However, the UN is multi-faceted, and much of their work is genuinely humanitarian.

Greg Burnham
08-15-2011, 03:54 PM
Thanks Jan. Except for the fact that the UN has held some relevant positions on eugenics in the past, this thread's topic was not about the UN. Since JFK was long dead before MMGW (totally off topic) became a concern, his speech writer's opinion about it is off topic, too (even in a MMGW thread, which this is not). Therefore, this thread's not even peripherally about JFK either.

This is a pattern that I have observed regarding apologists' reaction to both subjects, skepticism about over-population alarmism and Man Made Global Warming skepticism. These subjects seem to educe the same reaction from "alarmists" no matter what the subject of alarm. For instance, those who are alarmist regarding "peak oil" react similarly to those who are skeptical about that subject, as well.

In my view, "alarmism" can not be sustained through critical thinking. It must be sustained through catastrophic thinking. The argument "What if it is true though?" -- is no argument. Rather it is an Appeal to Emotion. More specifically, it is an appeal to fear. It reminds me of those who remain Catholic (or whatever religion) technically, even though they really don't practice their faith. On their death bed they may even receive the Last Rites "just in case it's true" after all.

This post is generic and is NOT targeting any specific member of this forum.

Gary Severson
08-16-2011, 12:02 AM
Greg, in post 18 the writer talks about climate change and you didn't suggest he was off topic. Then in post 35 you talk about climate change & no one accuses you of being off topic. But here we are almost 4 mths. into the thread and when there are finally posts made that use analogies about JFK, the UN & MMGW you cry foul. You doth protest too loudly.

Gary Severson
08-16-2011, 12:39 AM
Ed, here is the ref. to JFK's 1945 view of the UN in Douglas' "The Unspeakable", p 5&6. JFK actually says, I'm paraphrasing, he looks forward to the day of the conscientious objector being the predominant view at which point we can do away with national sovereignty and have one world government to save humanity from nuclear war. Accd. to Douglas JFK said this in reaction to witnessing the founding of the UN where he was journalist for Hearst News. Might this explain his picking of Ted Sorensen, the conscientious objector, as his advisor, when he entered the US senate.




What assumptions Ed? Read about the UN and JFK in James Douglas' "JFK & the UNSPEAKABLE". I asked Ted Sorensen what he thought JFK would think about man made global warming. He said without a doubt he would think man was the source of warming. I guess the UN's attempts to stop global warming would get JFK's applause.

You are going to have to be more specific, Gary. I own both versions of the book and the UN doesn't show up as an indexed item in either one of them. I do see references to two speeches JFK gave at the UN on nuclear test-ban treaties and nuclear disarmament. Was he lobbying for nuclear proliferation? Did he authorize the development of mutagenic warfare?

I don't see how this demonstrates that JFK should be considered a eugenicist. I don't see eugenics noted in the JFKU index either. If you are suggesting that JFK is a eugenicist because he was aware of the explosion in world population, that is fine; but that awareness doesn't make him a eugenicist. If you have something more, put it on the table; it'll be news to me. And I'd like to hear the logic spelled out, if you don't mind.

There's lots of information suggesting that a lot of people who would make the list of mechanics, facilitators or sponsors of JFK's assassination were oriented that way, but why would they kill one of their own ensconced in the White House and who was working on preventing nuclear holocaust?

And I'd like to hear the logic you used to derive the supposition that JFK was a eugenicist from the article I posted. Spell it out and parse it for those of us who are less adept at seeing these things.

Greg Burnham
08-16-2011, 02:31 PM
Gary,

Where there is a clear correlation between "over population" claims and the effect that man has on the planet due to same, those subjects might converge with Malthusianism and therefore might be on topic. But, claiming that JFK's speech writer knows what JFK would think about MMGW today (nearly 50 years postmortem) is clearly OFF TOPIC.

I didn't start the thread to talk about JFK's views on global warming or his love of the UN. If you want to discuss those things start a thread on it.


Greg, in post 18 the writer talks about climate change and you didn't suggest he was off topic. Then in post 35 you talk about climate change & no one accuses you of being off topic. But here we are almost 4 mths. into the thread and when there are finally posts made that use analogies about JFK, the UN & MMGW you cry foul. You doth protest too loudly.

Gary Severson
08-16-2011, 03:21 PM
Greg, I would argue that since you are citing Malthusianism as a "deep political control device" and JFK was assassinated by those sources of the same deep political control systems, his mention in relation to them is appropriate. His views on the UN are an indicator that the UN is not the boogeyman it is made out to be concerning it being a part of deep political structures spreading ideas about Maltusianism for the sake of a one world oligarchy. IOW I agree there are deep political structures bent on creating an elite one world govt. but there is a version that is meant to be JFK's version which is about a one world democratic system in order to avoid destruction of the planet by nuclear war.

Charles Drago
08-16-2011, 04:28 PM
First things first: I'm enjoying the hell out of this thread. In spite of the occasional emotion-driven response -- predictable, necessary, and humanizing -- I'm learning a great deal about multiple subjects. Thank you, one and all, for your contributions. And a special tip of the hat to Greg, who got us started.

If I may:


I asked Ted Sorensen what he thought JFK would think about man made global warming. He said without a doubt he would think man was the source of warming. I guess the UN's attempts to stop global warming would get JFK's applause.

This paragraph cannot be understood unless we acknowledge and address its bipartite construction.

There is great value in Sorensen's best guess as to JFK's thoughts regarding climate change/warming. He did indeed know the president's mind at least as well as anyone else could know it. I read Sorensen's subtext as: JFK would have seen through political/corporate pseudo-science, accepted the reality of warming, and done everything in his power to save the planet.

(On the other hand -- and with a nod to Greg -- JFK just might have ended up sharing the Burnham point of view. Although I doubt it -- but I'm no JFK.)

Alas, for me it does not follow that JFK would have approved UN efforts to reverse warming and its effects. His keen insight, as well as the insight of those great minds he no doubt would have assembled to address this problem, very well might have discerned "problems" with the UN's policies and actions.

Charles

Greg Burnham
08-16-2011, 05:50 PM
I'm glad you're enjoying this thread, Charles. Thanks for the nods...

Now, back to paradigms.

1) If we operate from the foregone conclusion that THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TO GO AROUND (Malthusianism), whether or not that is true, our behavior will reflect that core belief.

2) If we operate from the foregone conclusion that only the fittest among us will survive (Darwinism), then survival instinct dictates on a very primitive level that those who will survive must do so to the exclusion of the "less fit".

3) When combined, these two paradigms contribute to the insidiousness of the current global political agenda, thusly:

"Because there is insufficient sustenance for human life only the strongest, fastest, most cunning, most fertile, best fed, best clothed, best educated, most willing to do anything (even commit crime) to survive, living in countries with the strongest military, etc. will ultimately survive."

In such a paradigm (not enough to go around coupled with survival of the fittest) human beings are viscerally in mortal combat with each other. On an intellectual level it can even be justified, but only IF those paradigms hold true. IF there truly is no potential for the food supply to be adequate, then I see no way out of the trap. It is simple math. There is enough food for 3 of us. There is not enough food for all 47 of us. Some of us (perhaps all) are DEFINITELY going hungry. Who shall it be?

If we accept, as a given, that the resources are insufficient, then the only solution is for everyone to "fight it out" to see who is FIT ENOUGH to deserve to live. We can exploit the resources of weaker nations and justify our behavior, after all, we didn't invent the rules of engagement, we're merely forced to live by them. I suppose, alternately, we could simply kill all of those who are not FIT ENOUGH to resist us. We could impose population control on undesirables by sterilizing them.

In fact, we already do many of those things to weaker peoples and justify having done those things because there simply is not enough to go around...

But, when does it end? Will it end when we have, in fact, gone extinct through the selfish disregard for the rights of others? Or will it end when we dedicate ourselves to finding solutions instead of scapegoats?

Ed Jewett
08-16-2011, 08:16 PM
Just thinking out loud...

about this meme of global warming due to the collective man and whether there is enough of everything (air, food, soil, water, sunshine at the right intensity, what else should be included?),

and wondering how the trends toward severe weather aren't at least also related to the efforts of a few men (leaving exhaust plumes in the troposphere, ripping holes in the thermosphere, heating the ionosphere). Blaming this on too many people, cow farts, automobile exhaust, and the production of methane by various means seems interesting, especially if no one looks at what's going on inside and outside the envelope.

Gary Severson
08-17-2011, 01:57 AM
2/3 of the planet is water. That leaves 34% for humans to live on. But when we eliminate about 20% of the 1/3 of the land for deserts and ice caps we have, lets say, 10% left of the planet's surface for humans. It seems we could run out of land doesn't it? When sea level rises we'll lose much of what we gain from land we gain from under melted ice caps. I think the point here is that we have so little land to both produce food and live on that we need to pay attention to Malthus. Think of our situation as the condition of the Easter Islanders. They were in effect on an isolated island with only so many resources. They cut down all their trees because they needed them to roll the carved stone heads to the shoreline to honor their gods. They didn't understand the island would become uninhabitable when the trees were gone. No more wood for boats for fishing. They went extinct as a culture. Obviously our planet is like an island in space and we are cutting the trees that help keep the atmosphere's gases balanced. Maybe the overpopulated islands of Japan,Italy & Britain are like the Easter Islanders and when they saw they were short on space they expanded as empires and raised holy hell with the world. Include America as a phase in that dynamic as Britain expanded to N.Amer. When we realize we have only about 10% of the planet to live on we should see how precarious our existence is.

Ed Jewett
08-17-2011, 07:18 AM
We have too many carved stone heads in our culture; this is true. At lot of them are in the media, many of them are in government, a few of them hang out at web sites.

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).

The Japanese islanders may soon succumb to radiation, planting seeds seems headed for Monsanto-ization, things are being genetically modified at an increasing rate, robots are being readied to do most of the heavy work and a lot of the war-fighting, we have troops in over 100 countries, we are war-gaming nuclear war to insure it and setting up offensive shields against nuclear attack, white supremacists lurk in the corners, and the aliens are coming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuMb3bVMXyo&feature=related).

We must invest in new weaponry systems that will require vast new quantities of our fiscal capital, social capital, creativity and innovation or they are going to come down here and take our planet away from us because it is getting increasingly warmer (which probably suits them just fine).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_n-4s3wXZFKU/SQICKbC7DYI/AAAAAAAAAMs/zQlEDsTX47g/s400/obama+easter+island.gif

Magda Hassan
08-17-2011, 08:19 AM
I'm waiting for the rapture to come and remove all the death cultists so the rest of the relatively sane can get on with fixing things. Two birds with one stone. Reduce population and increase in IQ.

Charles Drago
08-17-2011, 05:00 PM
http://www.progressivepress.com/books?page=1

Forgive me if I've missed previous references to the following book. I have not read it and I know virtually nothing about the author or the website to which I've provided a link above. From that site:

The Triumph of Consciousness: Overcoming False Environmentalism, Lapdog Media, and Global Government

by: Chris Clark

Behind the Global Warming agenda lies globalization -- another path to hegemony by the NWO and their controlled corporate media.

Chris Clark presents a counter-intuitive thesis -- that apparently liberal tendencies like global warming or globalization are being promoted by the worst sort of reactionaries, the same types who used to push eugenics. But he has done his research, with over...

Publication date: 2010-04-16
Pages: 347 Price: $19.95 SALE PRICE: $14.95

Gary Severson
08-17-2011, 10:49 PM
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
08-17-2011, 11:31 PM
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
08-18-2011, 02:32 AM
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-Crichton/dp/0066214130

"From Publishers Weekly:
If Crichton is right–if 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
08-18-2011, 03:47 PM
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
08-18-2011, 05:43 PM
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
08-18-2011, 07:18 PM
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
08-18-2011, 07:29 PM
Aliens, Iranians, global warming... a giant game of deception and destruction. Who is having fun with this? Who benefits?

Ed Jewett
08-19-2011, 03:45 AM
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" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/07/news-corporation-newscore-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
08-19-2011, 02:10 PM
The theme you describe was the idea in Whitley Strieber's book COMMUNION 10-15 yrs. ago.

Mark Stapleton
08-19-2011, 05:48 PM
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.

Mark Stapleton
08-19-2011, 06:06 PM
Just because I am the CEO of a Real Estate firm in San Diego, doesn't necessarily mean that I fit into your stereotype.

No, but it means you have a dog in the fight. This diminishes your objectivity in this debate, whether you realise it or not.

Ed Jewett
08-19-2011, 09:38 PM
Who is Whitley Strieber?


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

Gary Severson
08-19-2011, 11:31 PM
I call him a novelist even though his series of books on aliens is part of his claim that he was contacted during nighttime episodes by little ETs at the foot of his bed. Their message was that man was in need of help to get through the environmental crisis. Actually good writing. I believe movies resulted from the books.

Ed Jewett
08-20-2011, 04:47 AM
Yes, definitely anthropogenic; watch the embedded video (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/200691/20110819/stereo-cme-dramatic-nasa-video-records-solar-storm-engulfing-earth-video.htm).

Let's put some toll booths out near Venus to collect the taxes.

Greg Burnham
08-20-2011, 07:15 AM
Just because I am the CEO of a Real Estate firm in San Diego, doesn't necessarily mean that I fit into your stereotype.

No, but it means you have a dog in the fight. This diminishes your objectivity in this debate, whether you realise it or not.

You have no dog in this fight yourself? Really? Then what are you doing in this fight?

Gary Severson
08-20-2011, 11:34 AM
Yes, definitely anthropogenic; watch the embedded video (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/200691/20110819/stereo-cme-dramatic-nasa-video-records-solar-storm-engulfing-earth-video.htm).

Let's put some toll booths out near Venus to collect the taxes.

Ed, no one denies the effect of the Sun's effect on Earth's climate. In fact James Lovelock who coined the term Gaia yrs. ago to describe the Earth as a living organism says that the increased activity of the Sun and consequent warming of the Earth coincides with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This results in the trapping of more of the increased incoming energy from the Sun. Without the increased human produced CO2 Earth would be effected more slowly by the greater solar activity. As it is we are seeing a more rapid warming than in previous solar maximums. Since man is a natural part of the ecosystem this increased CO2 is a natural phenomena but never the less it can be highly toxic to the atmosphere. That is the kind of effect a big brain can have on a planet. But the big brain can also recognize when its natural effects on the environment need to be modified. If the industrial age had by coincidence not coincided with a solar maximum we would likely be seeing a more gradual warming of the Earth and therefore adaptation by all the Earth's lifeforms. That species adaptation would happen as it always has even though there have been 5 great extinctions, one by asteroid, 4 by release of excess amounts of methane from permafrost and the present 6th extinction by big brain activity which is leading to excessive CO2 release and resulting melting of permafrost and subsequent methane release.

Greg Burnham
08-20-2011, 03:25 PM
Yes, definitely anthropogenic; watch the embedded video (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/200691/20110819/stereo-cme-dramatic-nasa-video-records-solar-storm-engulfing-earth-video.htm).

Let's put some toll booths out near Venus to collect the taxes.

Ed, no one denies the effect of the Sun's effect on Earth's climate. In fact James Lovelock who coined the term Gaia yrs. ago to describe the Earth as a living organism says that the increased activity of the Sun and consequent warming of the Earth coincides with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This results in the trapping of more of the increased incoming energy from the Sun. Without the increased human produced CO2 Earth would be effected more slowly by the greater solar activity. As it is we are seeing a more rapid warming than in previous solar maximums. Since man is a natural part of the ecosystem this increased CO2 is a natural phenomena but never the less it can be highly toxic to the atmosphere. That is the kind of effect a big brain can have on a planet. But the big brain can also recognize when its natural effects on the environment need to be modified. If the industrial age had by coincidence not coincided with a solar maximum we would likely be seeing a more gradual warming of the Earth and therefore adaptation by all the Earth's lifeforms. That species adaptation would happen as it always has even though there have been 5 great extinctions, one by asteroid, 4 by release of excess amounts of methane from permafrost and the present 6th extinction by big brain activity which is leading to excessive CO2 release and resulting melting of permafrost and subsequent methane release.

Here is another fine example of misrepresenting the facts. CO2 increases AFTER the warming has already occurred. Let me repeat for the slow learners: It has been proved that the hockey stick effect is erroneous for several reasons. This includes the most obvious reason: that the increase in atmospheric CO2 occurs after--and might even be the result of--increased global temperature. We also know that an increase in CO2 tends to create a filter and a protective layer around the planet whereby much of the solar heat is reduced through its being bounced into space before it even reaches the planet. While it's true that a by-product of increased C02 potentially adds to the greenhouse effect, it is also true that after a certain point increased C02 prevents solar energy from penetrating thus preventing the greenhouse effect. In other worlds, the planet's climate is a self regulated system. If there is an insufficient "greenhouse gas" effect the planet compensates for it. If there is too much, the planet compensates for it.

Are you going to turn the topic of every thread into Man Made Global Warming?

Gary Severson
08-20-2011, 04:11 PM
Unlike other greenhouse gases CO2 is transparent so CO2 allows incoming sunlight to reach the surface of the Earth. What it does trap are the infrared rays that would normally escape back into space at night but are instead absorbed by CO2 molecules. That is why the high nighttime temps are occurring more frequently in terms of record nighttime HIGH lows. Of course this is all enhanced by a larger human population functioning as an industrial polluting society. The most highly industrialized part of Earth is the agricultural sector which produces huge amounts of CO2 every time the vast acres dedicated to producing more & more food are plowed under to speed up oxidation of plant material to make next year's plantings grow more efficiently.

It's too bad people can't read the Minneapolis Star-Tribune weather section where every day meteorologist Paul Douglas explains why over-population is creating global warming.

Greg Burnham
08-20-2011, 10:48 PM
Unlike other greenhouse gases CO2 is transparent so CO2 allows incoming sunlight to reach the surface of the Earth. What it does trap are the infrared rays that would normally escape back into space at night but are instead absorbed by CO2 molecules. That is why the high nighttime temps are occurring more frequently in terms of record nighttime HIGH lows. Of course this is all enhanced by a larger human population functioning as an industrial polluting society. The most highly industrialized part of Earth is the agricultural sector which produces huge amounts of CO2 every time the vast acres dedicated to producing more & more food are plowed under to speed up oxidation of plant material to make next year's plantings grow more efficiently.

The "transparency" of C02 has nothing at all to do with this, Gary. There is a gas called, Dimethylsulfide (or DMS for short). This gas is responsible for well over 90% of the release of oceanic sulphuric gas, and accounts for a significant amount of cloud formation because it oxidizes (in the atmosphere) resulting in sulfate aerosols, which in turn seed cloud condensation. Its relationship to increased C02 is a subject you would perhaps do well to study.


Gary Severson said: "It's too bad people can't read the Minneapolis Star-Tribune weather section where every day meteorologist Paul Douglas explains why over-population is creating global warming."

Ok, so now we're at least somewhat back on topic. Why not question this paradigm, Gary? Why immediately buy into the doom and gloom scenario that we have all been led to believe since 1798? What if it's wrong? Isn't it worth questioning? Because if it is NOT wrong and there really isn't enough to go around and if too many people mean too much global warming, then what shall we do? Who should be restricted from having offspring? Shall we adopt the Communist China solution and limit the number of children that a couple can have to only two? What shall we do to those parents who don't comply with this mandate? Shall we imprison them? Of course, that won't solve the problem since we still will have one or more "too many" in that family. Shall we also murder the offspring that were born over the limit?

What shall we do to comply with the Severson Vision of Population Control? How will it work?

It is easy to point fingers at problems (real or imagined). It is quite another thing to offer solutions.

Gary Severson
08-21-2011, 03:10 AM
Why suggest there is a need to question the origin of the AGW thesis? That is what the studies have done by definition. If the studies hadn't been done and replicated many times then you could ask why the assumptions hadn't been questioned. That's how science works.

Of course CO2 is relevant. If sunlight is allowed in by its transparency and it is not transparent to outgoing infrared then we have a heating problem. Since I have faith that the scientists that talk about CO2 transparency have considered your ref. to DMS I can only dismiss your contention until you can persuade me differently.

Well James Lovelock says it is too late but I'm not giving up because I think we have to make efforts to shorten the amount of time the worst warming conditions will last.

The Chinese really didn't have enough to go around because the West was continually trying to destroy them. The Chinese had 400 million people in 1900 or 100 mill. more than the US, 100 yrs.before the US reached 300 mill. in 2000. With unlimited water from the Himalayas and a favorable warm climate they grew continuously for at least 10,000 yrs. To criticize them for having to take drastic pop. control measures when faced with a hostile West is not fair or logical.

Gary Severson
08-21-2011, 03:48 AM
GREG SAYS, The "transparency" of C02 has nothing at all to do with this, Gary. There is a gas called, Dimethylsulfide (or DMS for short). This gas is responsible for well over 90% of the release of oceanic sulphuric gas, and accounts for a significant amount of cloud formation because it oxidizes (in the atmosphere) resulting in sulfate aerosols, which in turn seed cloud condensation. Its relationship to increased C02 is a subject you would perhaps do well to study.


Gary says,
Is the CLAW hypothesis dead?

The CLAW hypothesis takes its name from Charlson, Lovelock, Andreae and Warren, whose 1987 paper suggested that phytoplankton could help regulate Earth’s climate. Phytoplankton – single-celled algae – emit a gas called dimethylsulphide (DMS) and the authors suggested that DMS forms tiny new particles (or aerosol) in the atmosphere which controls climate by affecting the amount of sunlight reflected by clouds. New aerosol particles from DMS have the potential to increase cloud reflectivity because they are effective cloud condensation nuclei and can increase the number of cloud drops.
However, new results from GLOMAP suggest that CLAW may be very weak.
The key aerosol quantity is the number concentration of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), but until recently global models did not include the necessary aerosol physics to quantify CCN. We used GLOMAP to calculate the sensitivity of CCN to changes in DMS emission using multiple present-day and future sea-surface DMS climatologies.
The DMS flux from a future globally warmed climatology was 0.2 Tg (sulphur) per year higher than present day. The largest CCN response to this extra DMS was seen in the Southern Ocean, contributing to a Southern Hemisphere mean annual increase of less than 0.2%.
We show that the changes in DMS flux and CCN concentration between the present day and global warming scenario are similar to interannual differences due to variability in windspeed. So although DMS makes a significant contribution to global marine CCN concentrations, the sensitivity of CCN to potential future changes in DMS flux is very low. This finding, together with the predicted small changes in future seawater DMS concentrations, suggests that the role of DMS in climate regulation is very weak.

Gary Severson
08-21-2011, 04:06 AM
Ken Carslaw @ GLOMAP should be the source credited in previous post called is "Claw Hypothesis Dead"?

Mark Stapleton
08-21-2011, 04:19 PM
You have no dog in this fight yourself? Really? Then what are you doing in this fight?

Unlike you I don't benefit financially from population growth.

Unlike you I see my living standards diminished by overpopulation.

I think its a stupid race to the bottom.

Greg Burnham
08-21-2011, 08:18 PM
[excerpt]

Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone?

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.

What are the causes of hunger?

What are the causes of hunger is a fundamental question, with varied answers.

Poverty is the principal cause of hunger. The causes of poverty include poor people's lack of resources, an extremely unequal income distribution in the world and within specific countries, conflict, and hunger itself. As of 2008 (2005 statistics), the World Bank has estimated that there were an estimated 1,345 million poor people in developing countries who live on $1.25 a day or less.3 This compares to the later FAO estimate of 1.02 billion undernourished people. Extreme poverty remains an alarming problem in the world’s developing regions, despite some progress that reduced "dollar--now $1.25-- a day" poverty from (an estimated) 1900 million people in 1981, a reduction of 29 percent over the period. Progress in poverty reduction has been concentrated in Asia, and especially, East Asia, with the major improvement occurring in China. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people in extreme poverty has increased. The statement that 'poverty is the principal cause of hunger' is, though correct, unsatisfying. Why then are (so many) people poor? The next section summarizes Hunger Notes answer.

Harmful economic systems are the principal cause of poverty and hunger. Hunger Notes believes that the principal underlying cause of poverty and hunger is the ordinary operation of the economic and political systems in the world. Essentially control over resources and income is based on military, political and economic power that typically ends up in the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the bottom barely survive, if they do. We have described the operation of this system in more detail in our special section on Harmful economic systems.

Conflict as a cause of hunger and poverty. At the end of 2005, the global number of refugees was at its lowest level in almost a quarter of a century. Despite some large-scale repatriation movements, the last three years have witnessed a significant increase in refugee numbers, due primarily to the violence taking place in Iraq and Somalia. By the end of 2008, the total number of refugees under UNHCR’s mandate exceeded 10 million. The number of conflict-induced internally displaced persons (IDPs) reached some 26 million worldwide at the end of the year . Providing exact figures on the number of stateless people is extremely difficult But, important, (relatively) visible though it is, and anguishing for those involved conflict is less important as poverty (and its causes) as a cause of hunger. (Using the statistics above 1.02 billion people suffer from chronic hunger while 36 million people are displaced [UNHCR 2008])

Hunger is also a cause of poverty, and thus of hunger. By causing poor health, low levels of energy, and even mental impairment, hunger can lead to even greater poverty by reducing people's ability to work and learn, thus leading to even greater hunger. [end]

The author goes on to mention that global warming and/or climate change is feared as another potential obstacle to overcoming world hunger. However, it is clear that there is currently enough to go around.

Greg Burnham
08-22-2011, 03:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA&playnext=1&list=PLE2719713434578CF

Gary Severson
08-22-2011, 07:25 PM
The trouble is more people than not believe his attempt at humor is the case.

Charles Drago
08-22-2011, 07:39 PM
I love Kinison, and I'd like to think he'd offer the following advice to us:

"I've been listening to you bemoaning the end of America and the emergence of a Fascist state here. And I share your pain and fear. But I've been in America for decades, and it's always been like this in my lifetime, and you keep raising your fists and doing your research, and it never changes. But I know how to save you.

"MOVE WHERE THE DEMOCRACY IS!

"C'mere, c'mere ... look around you ... you know what this is, all the illegal wars and unelected presidents and corporate crimes and coup d'etats ... the end of culture and the rise of theocracy ... IT'S THE END OF AMERICA, THE END OF DEMOCRACY, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MOVE WHERE THE DEMOCRACY IS!"

Greg Burnham
08-22-2011, 08:05 PM
Me too, Charles. I love Kinison. That his is an overly simplistic solution is what makes it appealing.

I'm grateful that most people haven't the ability to appreciate simplicity for the following reason: If they did San Diego would suffer severe over-population! I moved back to San Diego in 1989 almost immediately after I realized that it has, literally, the best climate in the world. I just packed up and went.

San Diego's Average Temperatures (Highs on top--Lows on bottom)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
65° 66° 66° 68° 68° 71° 76° 77° 77° 74° 68° 66°
48° 50° 52° 55° 58° 61° 65° 67° 65° 60° 54° 48°
1.8" 1.5" 1.8" 0.8" 0.3" 0.1" - - - - 1.5" 1.6" (Rain fall)

It's not the best kept secret in the world. It just feels like it is.

Gary Severson
08-23-2011, 12:31 AM
I like Kinison too. Yeh, one can move to where there is democracy if you want to leave families behind. As far as San Diego goes, yes it is a beautiful place, but as a native of SD said to me once, none of this beauty would be here without irrigation. As you describe Greg, less than 9" of rain per yr. basically means a desert. I prefer 35-40" per yr. You need 35" for a forest. I have 1000 lakes within 50 mi. of my house in Mpls.& 15,000 within 300 mi. & hundreds of thousands just over the Canadian border. There are 7mths., April thru Oct., of very pleasant weather & 5 mths. of hard water. I know people that move here from NYC because of the weather. They say it is a dry cold compared to the cold wet sea level temps. in NYC winters. That's why there are 3 mill. people in the Mpls./Bloomington/St.Paul metro. It is, relatively speaking, the 2nd largest (Kansas City 1st) metro (2500) sq. mi. wise. This is because there are no mountains or oceans to stop sprawl. So most houses are on large lots in comparison to most cities and therefore it spreads the city out. Real estate is huge here as a result. You need to get into ice fishing Greg.

Ed Jewett
08-24-2011, 08:12 PM
Wondering aloud where David Guyatt is (hoping he is healthy and thriving in his retirement), as I recall reading some of his work years ago on state-sponsored weather modification, now probably a full-blown multi-state enterprise harnessing science, airplanes, antennae, space weapons, and more. In that light:


Notorious El Nino Doubles Civil Wars, Scientists Say

http://newyork.ibtimes.com/articles/203353/20110824/el-nino-civil-war-conflict-climate-cycle-trigger.htm

August 24, 2011 3:18 PM EDT

The El Nino climate cycle brings not only high temperatures and dry weather, but also more chances of civil wars, a new study claims.

Between 1950 and 2004, the risk of civil wars doubled in 90 tropical countries when hit by El Nino, is the warm phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO, a periodic warming and cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean.

While its partner La Nina is a cool, rainy period, El Nino brings high temperature and more scarce rainfall every three to seven years, impacting weather patterns across much of Africa, the Mideast, India, southeast Asia, Australia, and the Americas, which holds half the world's population.

Interacting with other factors including wind and temperature cycles over the other oceans, El Nino can vary dramatically in power and length. At its most intense, it brings scorching heat and multi-year droughts.

In the study published in Wednesday's Nature, scientists from Princeton University and Columbia University's Earth Institute used statistics to link global weather observations and outbreaks of violence.

Must Read

HP TouchPad Sale: Top Free and Paid Apps
Brenda Song Pregnant With Trace Cyrus' Child, Fans React on Twitter
Kim Kardashian Wedding Rumors Cleared Up For Lindsay Lohan [PHOTOS]
Sponsorship Link
How to make money from gold investment

The scientists correlated ENSO from 1950 to 2004 with onsets of civil conflicts that killed more than 25 people in a given year. The data included 175 countries and 234 conflicts, with over half of which each caused more than 1,000 battle-related deaths.

The findings suggest that the arrival of El Nino doubled the risk of civil conflict across 90 affected tropical countries, and may help account for a fifth of worldwide conflicts over the past half-century.

Remarkable links were found between El Nino patterns and civil unrest in Peru in 1982 and Sudan in 1963.

Further, a strong link between violence and El Nino were also found in El Salvador, the Philippines and Uganda in 1972; Angola, Haiti and Myanmar in 1991, and Congo, Eritrea, Indonesia and Rwanda in 1997.

"This is the first major evidence that the global climate is a major factor in organized violence around the world," says Solomon M. Hsiang, the study's lead author, a graduate of the Earth Institute's Ph.D. in sustainable development.

While the study does not blame specific wars on El Nino, it confirms many scientists' speculation over the strong link between climate-conflict.

Just this July, the UN Security Council discussed on climate-driven conflicts. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted that the possible adverse effects of climate change are "not only exacerbates threats to international peace and security; it is a threat to international peace and security".

"The most important thing is that this looks at modern times, and it's done on a global scale," said Hsiang. "We can speculate that a long-ago Egyptian dynasty was overthrown during a drought. That's a specific time and place, that may be very different from today, so people might say, 'OK, we're immune to that now.' This study shows a systematic pattern of global climate affecting conflict, and shows it right now."

"No one should take this to say that climate is our fate. Rather, this is compelling evidence that it has a measurable influence on how much people fight overall," said the co-author Mark Cane, a climate scientist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

"It is not the only factor--you have to consider politics, economics, all kinds of other things."

According to Cane, the poorest countries respond to El Nino with violence.

The natural El Nino cycle is different from manmade global warming which continuously ramps up the temperature and extreme weather, according to the researchers. Global warming would have even greater impacts than the El Niño, and is more likely to provoke conflicts, noted Cane.

El Nino patterns can be predicted up to two years ahead, the study may give room for pre-emptive action for some conflicts and reduce humanitarian suffering.

Gary Severson
08-25-2011, 01:01 AM
I'm glad the art. writer can distinguish between El Nino and MMGW.

Ed Jewett
08-25-2011, 01:20 AM
.. to say nothing of the insertion of chaos on the ground with the help of gun-trafficking, elite military operators and trainers, Gladio-style "pop-ups", the training and propagandization of terror as described in Terry Melanson's "The Perfectibilists", or the patents behind HAARP as noted in the books and articles by Nick Begich, Jr. or their effects as tracked by dutchinse (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=7&gs_id=2s&xhr=t&q=dutchsinse&qe=ZHV0Y2hzaQ&qesig=dr8NOFr_f1DjjG4yUj1Kzw&pkc=AFgZ2tlWmuOhMM4jRRQJEIiHMq-PNfj0psUwHakQYTIJa68MxkrAdYDuyPiZ0CS8XVUDQBX5CMzYR IMWTZv9v4hbNOmt6JG6Hg&pq=dutchsinse&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=dutchsi&aq=0&aqi=g5&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ae1bafe2df197d5b&biw=1024&bih=1237)

Ed Jewett
08-25-2011, 04:46 AM
The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria


The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from the many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change.

A May 20 report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.”

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”

OMB pointed out that their previously noted agency budget compilations didn’t include revenues lost for the special deductions and tax credits intended to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions. They attributed to those subsidies a cost of $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses during 2010 alone, ($16.1 billion since 1993), bringing the total since 2003 to $122.8 billion. Then there’s still another $26.1 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities within the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or “Stimulus Bill”).

Climate change spending won’t slow any time soon…not so long as current Obama policies prevail. A proposed $1,328 million FY 2012 budget for its Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) aimed at helping developing countries address man-made global warming problems that we’ve allegedly caused represents a 557% increase since FY 2008 (then $202 million). Implemented through programs sponsored by the Department of State, Treasury, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), it is funded by the administration’s executive budget. As stated, “The President’s FY2012 budget request follows on the December 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, which formulated a package of ‘nationally appropriate’ measures toward the goal of avoiding dangerous climate change.” This is part of “…a commitment to near-term and long-term climate financing for the least developed countries amounting to near $30 billion for the period 2010-2012, and $100 billion annually by 2020.”

Then there’s the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency’s Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA’s own “Internal Study on Climate” that: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.

A U.S. Energy Information Administration economic forecasting model indicates that a proposed 70% cut in CO2 emissions will cause gasoline prices to rise 77% over baseline projections, kill more than 3 million jobs, and reduce average household income by more than $4,000 each year.

The EPA is now embarking upon still another among many anti-fossil fuel rampages through new pending utility rule legislation to reduce coal-fired mercury emissions.

Paradoxically, this is occurring when Americans are being virtually forced to abandon incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent fixtures containing mercury, much of which is destined to end up in landfills. EPA rushed the utility rule through in March, allowing only 60 days for public comment rather than the basic practice of 120-180 days, and overstating U.S. mercury emissions by a factor of 1,000 in the process. Even the agency admits that the rule will cost $10.9 billion annually. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a usual White House ally, says it will directly destroy 50,000 jobs, and 200,000 more down the supply line.


The EPA has also recently announced new environmental guidelines that will essentially end surface “mountaintop” mining in a six-state region centered on Appalachia that produced more than 10% of U.S. coal in 2008, and employed nearly 20,000 people. And just how much consideration does the EPA give to the severe economic and employment impacts of its initiatives? The unambiguous answer is — none.

When Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo) raised the cost consequence question, the letter she received back from Assistant EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was very clear: “Under the Clean Air Act, decisions regarding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) must be based solely on evaluation of the scientific evidence as it pertains to health and environmental effects. Thus, the agency is prohibited from considering costs in setting the NAAQS.” Responding to a question by Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Col.) before the House Environment and Energy Committee regarding regulations that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts for concrete, wallboard and roofing materials, EPA Administrator Mathy Stanislaus stated: “We have not directly taken a look at jobs in this proposal.”

Isn’t it maybe high time that those responsible for regulatory oversight take a serious look at those costs and impacts? After all, didn’t President Obama issue an Executive Order 13563 in January specifically requiring that all new rules issued by federal agencies take job creation into account?

Consider that current policies are costing hundreds of billions we can’t afford along with millions of lost employment opportunities; all based extensively on a bogus, politically manufactured climate crisis devoid of any supportable scientific evidence. This is occurring at a time when our gross national deficit following a ceiling rise exceeds the size of our GDP, and the U.S. credit rating has been devalued for the first time in history.

Forget about trying to stop natural climate change. It is the political climate responsible for these circumstances we really need to change. That’s the threat that presents really serious reasons for alarm!


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

Gary Severson
08-25-2011, 01:41 PM
So sad Larry Bell is so disingenuous. To actually think mountain top removal is OK. He says he is grateful Forbes Mag. puts up with him. I guess that's right.

Ed Jewett
08-25-2011, 06:25 PM
A HAARP With a Malevolent Tune
by Nicholas Vakkur / August 24th, 2011

The US government, despite the pledge of Barack Obama and the protracted economic woes decimating our national fabric, continues to sink hundreds of billions into the development of highly secretive weapons programs—as if the world lacked sufficient means to kill. One recently disclosed program is laser weaponry. Another, all the more guarded and insidious, is HAARP, an array of microwave antennas located in Alaska that produces an impressive one billion watts, for the purpose of fomenting unusually violent and destructive weather patterns. (It bears noting that Russia also owns several such machines).

HAARP functions by warming the ionosphere, which permits it to control the jet streams that cause weather. Contrary to naturally induced weather patterns, HAARP initiates quick and violent weather changes: tornadoes, hurricanes, and winds that change direction rapidly, creating destructive mayhem. HAARP also focuses violent weather upon particular — or unexpected — regions over elongated periods of time that is not characteristic of naturally formed weather patterns, which remain in one particular area for only a brief period of time.

A record number of Americans died this year from tornadoes, which struck unusual areas, including Massachusetts. Storm patterns; e.g., record snowfalls and cold throughout America, especially in the North, impacted certain regions with a frequency defying natural probabilities, as noted by meteorologists. Heavy rains also pounded the Mississippi River region for an unusually extended period of time, producing record floods.

By focusing a series of low 5 Hz, harmonic frequencies on a specific area, HAARP can also produce earthquakes at will. However, this process leaves behind telltale signs: 1) it emits various colors resembling an Aurora Borealis in the sky, a byproduct of when the microwaves ionize the air, and 2) wavy lines in the clouds, as produced by the same frequency patterns. HAARP was responsible for the recent earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, China, as well as the massive 9.0 in Japan. This may be confirmed in part by the widespread accounts — and pictures — of the telltale aurora borealis immediately prior to each quake.

HAARP also destroys nature: the microwaves and electromagnetic radiation have killed birds, fish, and bees in large numbers. In addition, various animals and insects have become disoriented, an effect that is jointly attributable to HAARP as well as to global cell phone usage, which also involves microwaves.

Linking HAARP to these irregular weather patterns and destructive effects is difficult to prove scientifically — though not impossible. The key is to carefully evaluate historical weather trends as well as to analyze the behavior of current weather patterns. Some meteorologists, for instance, have blamed the unusually cold weather upon various oscillator highs over Greenland. However, it is relatively easy to manipulate even these weather currents by using HAARP to move jet streams in waves.

It is essential that the general public demand that the existence of this ultra-sophisticated weather machine be publicly acknowledged and that its true purpose be publicly revealed: information which would undoubtedly result in HAARP’s abrupt termination. The lack of any organized grassroots movement to pull the plug on HAARP is a direct result of the fact that its very existence been carefully shrouded in (ultra-top) secrecy. Internet articles focusing on HAARP are commonly removed, while no mention of it is permitted in the mainstream press. Alarmed Americans must work quickly and feverishly to prevent this destructive technology from being used any further upon our own nation. Americans must join together to publicly demand that HAARP be dismantled and destroyed. Otherwise, America, and the world at large, will continue to be battered by costly and freakish weather patterns — which defy any logical explanation — that decimate our economy just as they destabilize our republic.

Nicholas Vakkur is a researcher that lives in Venice, CA with his wife and two children. He can be reached at: Nv1234567@hotmail.com. Read other articles by Nicholas, or visit Nicholas's website.

This article was posted on Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under Disasters, Environment, Kalaallit Nunaat/Greenland, Obama, Science/Technology.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/08/a-haarp-with-a-malevolent-tune/#more-36282

Gary Severson
08-25-2011, 10:56 PM
If HAARP is used on the ionesphere how can it effect the jet stream which is in the troposphere?

Ed Jewett
08-26-2011, 01:27 AM
THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 2011

The Next Scientific Frontier: Sun-Earth Interactions

Quantum computing, nanotechnology and genetic engineering are exciting fields. But understanding the interaction between the Sun and Earth is at least as important as a scientific frontier.

The Sun Affects Clouds and Ozone, Which In Turn Affect Climate

For example, one of the world's most prestigious science labs has just demonstrated that cosmic rays affect cloud formation - which in turn affects climate - on Earth. Because the sun's output directly determines the amount of cosmic rays which reach the Earth, the sun is an important driver of the Earth's climate.

And as I noted last year:

Intense solar activity can destroy ozone in the Earth's atmosphere, thus affecting climactic temperatures. See this, this, this and this. Indeed, the effects of solar energy on ozone may be one of the main ways in which the sun influences Earth's climate.

The Sun's Output Changes the Rate of Radioactive Decay On Earth

Believe it or not, Stanford University News reported Tuesday that solar flares change the rate of radioactive decay of elements on Earth:

When researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up protecting the lives of space-walking astronauts and maybe rewriting some of the assumptions of physics.

***


The radioactive decay of some elements sitting quietly in laboratories on Earth seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun, 93 million miles away.
Is this possible?

Researchers from Stanford and Purdue University believe it is. But their explanation of how it happens opens the door to yet another mystery.

There is even an outside chance that this unexpected effect is brought about by a previously unknown particle emitted by the sun. "That would be truly remarkable," said Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun.

The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient.

***

As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants.

Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.

***

On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.

If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.

The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana – meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?

Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at almost the speed of light through the physical world – humans, rocks, oceans or planets – with virtually no interaction with anything.

***

Going back to take another look at the decay data from the Brookhaven lab, the researchers found a recurring pattern of 33 days. It was a bit of a surprise, given that most solar observations show a pattern of about 28 days – the rotation rate of the surface of the sun.

The explanation? The core of the sun – where nuclear reactions produce neutrinos – apparently spins more slowly than the surface we see. "It may seem counter-intuitive, but it looks as if the core rotates more slowly than the rest of the sun," Sturrock said.

All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is "communicating" with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach.

***

"It doesn't make sense according to conventional ideas," Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, "What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."

"It's an effect that no one yet understands," agreed Sturrock. "Theorists are starting to say, 'What's going on?' But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too."

If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable," Sturrock said.

The Sun Interacts With the Earth In Numerous Other Ways

I pointed out last year that the sun affects the Earth in many more ways than scientists knew:

The sun itself also affects the Earth more than previously understood. For example, according to the European Space Agency:

Scientists ... have proven that sounds generated deep inside the Sun cause the Earth to shake and vibrate in sympathy. They have found that Earth’s magnetic field, atmosphere and terrestrial systems, all take part in this cosmic sing-along.

And NASA has just discovered that "space weather" causes "spacequakes" on Earth:

Researchers using NASA's fleet of five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a form of space weather that packs the punch of an earthquake and plays a key role in sparking bright Northern Lights. They call it "the spacequake."

A spacequake is a temblor in Earth's magnetic field. It is felt most strongly in Earth orbit, but is not exclusive to space. The effects can reach all the way down to the surface of Earth itself.

"Magnetic reverberations have been detected at ground stations all around the globe, much like seismic detectors measure a large earthquake," says THEMIS principal investigator Vassilis Angelopoulos of UCLA.

It's an apt analogy because "the total energy in a spacequake can rival that of a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake," according to Evgeny Panov of the Space Research Institute in Austria.

***

"Now we know," says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Plasma jets trigger spacequakes."

According to THEMIS, the jets crash into the geomagnetic field some 30,000 km above Earth's equator. The impact sets off a rebounding process, in which the incoming plasma actually bounces up and down on the reverberating magnetic field. Researchers call it "repetitive flow rebuffing." It's akin to a tennis ball bouncing up and down on a carpeted floor. The first bounce is a big one, followed by bounces of decreasing amplitude as energy is dissipated in the carpet.

***

"When plasma jets hit the inner magnetosphere, vortices with opposite sense of rotation appear and reappear on either side of the plasma jet," explains Rumi Nakamura of the Space Research Institute in Austria, a co-author of the study. "We believe the vortices can generate substantial electrical currents in the near-Earth environment."

Acting together, vortices and spacequakes could have a noticeable effect on Earth. The tails of vortices may funnel particles into Earth's atmosphere, sparking auroras and making waves of ionization that disturb radio communications and GPS. By tugging on surface magnetic fields, spacequakes generate currents in the very ground we walk on. Ground current surges can have profound consequences, in extreme cases bringing down power grids over a wide area.

What does this mean?

Some allege that spacequakes cause actual, physical earthquakes on Earth. I have no idea whether or not that is true.

The above-quoted NASA article concludes with a poem which implies such a connection:


Vortices swirl
plasma a'twirl
Richter predicts
a magnitude six

The poem may use artistic license rather than scientific rigor. However, some scientists do believe that the sun's activity can even cause earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and extreme weather.

What is certain is that the science of the affect of space events on Earth is in its infancy, and that there are many fascinating discoveries in our future.

When scientists understand all of the ways that the Sun and Earth interact, we will know alot more about the Earth and our place in the universe than we do today.

****

Scientific Experiment By Top Laboratory Shows that Cosmic Rays Affect Cloud Formation, Which In Turn Affects Climate

Image Courtesy of CERN (Click for clearer image)

One of the world's most prestigious science labs - CERN - has found that cosmic rays affect cloud formation.

By way of background, the news magazine for the prestigious science journal Nature noted yesterday:

The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.

Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.

The Director of CERN's cosmic ray experiment (Jasper Kirby) now says that experiments show that cosmic rays significantly enhance the production of the particles which initiate the cloud-formation process. Specifically, cosmic rays allow the minute amounts of sulfuric acid and ammonia in the atmosphere to stabilize, and then - when the clusters grow to 20 molecules or more - become the structure around which moisture can condense so that clouds begin to form.

A press release from CERN states:

The CLOUD results show that trace vapours assumed until now to account for aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can explain only a tiny fraction of the observed atmospheric aerosol production. The results also show that ionisation from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol formation.

A new scientific paper published today by the CERN team in Nature summarizes the results. And here is a chart graphically conveying the results of the experiment:



While the CERN findings are very important, they are not the first experimental results to confirm the affect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.

A team of Danish scientists from Aarhus University and the National Space Institute published results in May showing the same basic mechanism:

[Danish scientists] have directly demonstrated in a new experiment that cosmic radiation can create small floating particles – so-called aerosols – in the atmosphere. By doing so, they substantiate the connection between the Sun’s magnetic activity and the Earth’s climate.

With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.

The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models.

With the researchers’ new knowledge, it is now clear that here is a correlation between the Sun’s varying activity and the formation of aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere.

***

In a climate chamber at Aarhus University, scientists have created conditions similar to the atmosphere at the height where low clouds are formed. By irradiating this artificial atmosphere with fast electrons from ASTRID – Denmark’s largest particle accelerator – they have also created conditions that resemble natural ones on this point.

Simply by comparing situations in the climate chamber with and without electron radiation, the researchers can directly see that increased radiation leads to more aerosols.

In the atmosphere, these aerosols grow into actual cloud nuclei in the course of hours or days, and water vapour concentrates on these, thus forming the small droplets the clouds consist of.

See this for more amazing ways in which the sun may affect the Earth.
0 COMMENTS


Can Solar Activity Cause Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Extreme Weather?


Some Scientists Believe Solar Activity Can Cause Earthquakes, Volcanoes or Extreme Weather

A 1967 study published in the Earth and Planetary Science Letters found:
Solar activity, as indicated by sunspots, radio noise and geomagnetic indices, plays a significant but by no means exclusive role in the triggering of earthquakes. Maximum quake frequency occurs at times of moderately high and fluctuating solar activity. Terrestrial solar flare effects which are the actual coupling mechanisms which trigger quakes appear to be either abrupt accelerations in the earth's angular velocity or surges of telluric currents in the earth's crust. The graphs presented in this paper permit probabilistic forecasting of earthquakes, and when used in conjunction with local indicators may provide a significant tool for specific earthquake prediction.

A 1998 report by a scientist from the Beijing Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, also found a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes:

It has been found that:

(1) Earthquakes occur frequently around the minimum years of solar activity. Generally, the earthquake activities are relatively less during the peak value years of solar activity, some say, around the period when magnetic polarity in the solar polar regions is reversed.

(2) The earthquake frequency in the minimum period of solar activity is closely related to the maximum annual means of sunspot numbers, the maximum annual means of solar 10.7 cm radio flux and solar proton events of a whole solar cycle, and the relation between earthquake and solar proton events is closer than others.
Mitch Battros theorized in 1998 that large solar flares affect Earth's magnetic field, which in turn shifts the oceanic and atmospheric currents, which can cause earthquakes and extreme weather. As Battros summarizes his formula:
Sunspots => Solar Flares (charged particles) => Magnetic Field Shift => Shifting Ocean and Jet Stream Currents => Extreme Weather [including earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes or other extreme natural events]

Battros' theories have been endorsed to one degree or another by:
Dr. Ernest Hildner, Director NOAA Space Weather Center
Dr. Tom Van Flandern, former US Naval Observatory Chief of Celestial Mechanics
Dr. Stefaan Poedts: Lead Scientist University of Leuven Center for Plasma Astrophysics
Dr. Ronald van der Linden, Director of Solar Physics Department of the Royal Observatory
Dr. Pål Brekke, Deputy Director of SOHO project- European Space Agency
The BBC pointed out in 2008:
Nasa scientists have said they could be on the verge of a breakthrough in their efforts to forecast earthquakes.

Researchers say they have found a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending quakes on the ground below.

Just such a signal was spotted in the days leading up to the recent devastating event in China.

They have teamed up with experts in the UK to investigate a possible space-based early warning system.

Many in the scientific community remain deeply sceptical about whether such signals are indeed indicators of an approaching earthquake.

But Minoru Freund, a physicist and director for advanced aerospace materials and devices at Nasa's Ames Research Center in California, told BBC News: "I do believe that we will be able to establish a clear correlation between certain earthquakes and certain pre-earthquake signals, in an unbiased way."

***
The ionosphere is distinguished from other layers of Earth's atmosphere because it is electrically charged through exposure to solar radiation.

On a significant number of occasions, satellites have picked up disturbances in this part of the atmosphere 100-600km above areas that have later been hit by earthquakes.

One of the most important of these is a fluctuation in the density of electrons and other electrically-charged particles in the ionosphere.

One study looked at over 100 earthquakes with magnitudes of 5.0 or larger in Taiwan over several decades. The researchers found that almost all of the earthquakes down to a depth of about 35km were preceded by distinct electrical disturbances in the ionosphere.

The analysis was carried out by Jann-Yeng Liu, from the Center for Space and Remote Sensing Research in Chung-Li, Taiwan.

Though full details have yet to be released, the BBC understands that scientists also observed a "huge" signal in the ionosphere before the Magnitude 7.8 earthquake in China on 12 May.

***
Minoru and his father Friedemann Freund, also from Nasa Ames Research Center, developed the scientific theory behind these earthquake precursors. It boils down to the idea that when rocks are compressed - as when tectonic plates shift - they act like batteries, producing electric currents.

"We now pretty much understand the solid-state physics of these rocks," Minoru added.

According to their theory, the charge carrier is a "positive hole", known as a phole, which can travel large distances in laboratory experiments.

When they travel to the surface of the Earth, the surface becomes positively charged. And this charge can be strong enough to affect the ionosphere, causing the disturbances documented by satellites.

When these pholes "recombine" at the surface of the Earth, they enter an excited state. They subsequently "de-excite" and emit mid-infrared light particles, or photons. This may explain the IR observations.

NASA assumes that compressed rocks release electrical charges which travel upwards into the ionosphere. But no one has tested whether or not the reverse is happening: solar fluctuations are charging the ionosphere, causing earthquakes.

NASA also discovered last year that "space weather" causes "spacequakes" on Earth:
Researchers using NASA's fleet of five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a form of space weather that packs the punch of an earthquake and plays a key role in sparking bright Northern Lights. They call it "the spacequake."

A spacequake is a temblor in Earth's magnetic field. It is felt most strongly in Earth orbit, but is not exclusive to space. The effects can reach all the way down to the surface of Earth itself.

"Magnetic reverberations have been detected at ground stations all around the globe, much like seismic detectors measure a large earthquake," says THEMIS principal investigator Vassilis Angelopoulos of UCLA.

It's an apt analogy because "the total energy in a spacequake can rival that of a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake," according to Evgeny Panov of the Space Research Institute in Austria.

***

"Now we know," says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Plasma jets trigger spacequakes."

According to THEMIS, the jets crash into the geomagnetic field some 30,000 km above Earth's equator. The impact sets off a rebounding process, in which the incoming plasma actually bounces up and down on the reverberating magnetic field. Researchers call it "repetitive flow rebuffing." It's akin to a tennis ball bouncing up and down on a carpeted floor. The first bounce is a big one, followed by bounces of decreasing amplitude as energy is dissipated in the carpet.

***
"When plasma jets hit the inner magnetosphere, vortices with opposite sense of rotation appear and reappear on either side of the plasma jet," explains Rumi Nakamura of the Space Research Institute in Austria, a co-author of the study. "We believe the vortices can generate substantial electrical currents in the near-Earth environment."

Acting together, vortices and spacequakes could have a noticeable effect on Earth. The tails of vortices may funnel particles into Earth's atmosphere, sparking auroras and making waves of ionization that disturb radio communications and GPS. By tugging on surface magnetic fields, spacequakes generate currents in the very ground we walk on. Ground current surges can have profound consequences, in extreme cases bringing down power grids over a wide area.

What does this mean?

Some allege that spacequakes cause actual, physical earthquakes on Earth. The above-quoted NASA article concludes with a poem which implies such a connection:


Vortices swirl
plasma a'twirl
Richter predicts
a magnitude six
However, the poem may use artistic license rather than scientific rigor.

BBC weather presenter and climate correspondent Paul Hudson noted in March:
Last year a preliminary study was published from the Space and Science research centre in Florida. [Here is the study]

A review of historical records was performed for 350 years of global volcanic activity (1650-2009) and seismic (earthquake) activity for the past 300 years (1700 to 2009) within the continental United States and then compared to the Sun's record of sunspots as a measure of solar activity.

According to this study, there exists a strong correlation between solar activity and the Earth's largest seismic and volcanic events.

They found an impressive degree of correlation for global volcanic activity (>80.6%) and for the largest USA earthquakes (100% of the top 7 most powerful) versus solar activity lows.

***

Piers Corbyn, at Weather action, added last month following the New Zealand earthquake that within such long quieter solar periods like we have been through, the biggest earthquake & volcano events are triggered by extra solar activity, particularly during the the rising phase of even solar cycles.

This is precisely where we are now as Solar cycle 24 gains in strength....

According to Mr Corbyn, 'The (New Zealand) event follows the world wide increase in volcanism and earthquakes in the last year or two and confirms the general statistical fact that more - and more serious - earthquakes, and volcanic activity, tend to occur around solar cycle minima'.

He reckons there will be more strong earthquakes like the ones we have recently witnessed in the next 2 years.

This is another one of those frustrating areas of science. There does seem to be empirical evidence to show a link between periods of low solar activity, and increased occurrences of earthquakes, but quite why this is so is not fully understood.

RT claimed in July:
The change in the Earth's seismic activity coincides with the rise of activity on the sun. Scientists have been witnessing gigantic bursts of plasma on its surface and say they are affecting our planet, even though it is over 90 million miles away.

Each burst sends billions of particles into space which impacts the Earth's magnetic field. This may trigger some of the processes going on deep bellow its surface, leading to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

Scientists predict solar activity will increase and say in the next few years, large-scale disruptions of electronic equipment, radio transmissions, computer failures and massive black-outs could become parts of everyday life.
Postscript: United States Secretary of Defense William Cohen said to a conference on terrorism on April 28, 1997 that people can:
Alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.
If Secretary Cohen is correct that electromagnetic waves can alter climate, set off earthquakes and cause volcanoes, then that could bolster the argument that the sun could do so as well, since it is a very large source of electromagnetic waves.

****

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2011

It's Official: Human Activity Can Cause Earthquakes


Human Activity Is Officially Acknowledged to Cause Earthquakes

The United States Geological Survey is America's official expert on earthquakes. It's the Federal agency charged with monitoring, reporting on, researching and stressing preparedness for earthquakes.

So I was surprised to read the following statement by the USGS:

Earthquakes induced by human activity have been documented in a few locations in the United States, Japan, and Canada. The cause was injection of fluids into deep wells for waste disposal and secondary recovery of oil, and the use of reservoirs for water supplies. Most of these earthquakes were minor. The largest and most widely known resulted from fluid injection at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. In 1967, an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 followed a series of smaller earthquakes. Injection had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established. (Nicholson, Craig and Wesson, R.L., 1990, Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection--A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1951, 74 p.)

Injection Wells Can Induce Earthquakes

The New York Times noted in February:

Researchers with the Arkansas Geological Survey say that while there is no discernible link between earthquakes and gas production, there is “strong temporal and spatial” evidence for a relationship between these quakes and the injection wells.

For decades, scientists have been researching induced seismicity, or how human activity can cause earthquakes. Such a link gained attention in the early 1960s, when hundreds of quakes were recorded in Colorado a few years after the Army began injecting fluid into a disposal well near the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory points out:

Induced seismicity [i.e. earthquakes] in oil and gas production has been observed ever since the 1930s, i.e., ever since large scale extraction of fluids occurred. The most famous early instance was in Wilmington, California, where the oil production triggered a series of damaging earthquakes. In this instance the cause of the seismicity was traced to subsidence due to rapid extraction of oil without replacement of fluids.

***

In the last decade a number of examples on earthquake activity related to oil and gas production as well as injection of liquids under high pressure have been observed, although not with as serious consequences as for Wilmington. Almost all induced seismicity associated with petroleum extraction can be traced to either fluid injection or extraction. In some recent cases injection of produced water (excess water extracted during oil and gas extraction) has produce significant seismic activity. Examples are in Colorado and Texas where gas and oil production yield large volumes of water that must be put back underground. In some cases the water cannot be put back exactly where it was produced and over pressurization of the water causes induced seismicity.

Lawrence Berkeley Lab provides details:
Fluid pressures play a key role in causing seismicity. Explained in simple terms, fluids can play a major role in controlling the pressures that are acting on the faults. The fluid pressure in the pores and fractures of the rocks is called the pore pressure.

***

Injecting fluids into the subsurface is one way of increasing the pore pressure and thus allowing the faults and fractures to “fail” more easily, thus inducing an earthquake.

***
That is why in many cases induced seismicity is caused by injecting fluid into the subsurface or by extracting fluids at a rate that causes subsidence and/or slippage along planes of weakness in the earth. Figure 2 is an example of induced seismicity being caused by water injection. Figure 2 is a cross section of the earth showing the location of the earthquakes (green dots), the locations of injection wells (thick blue lines) and production wells (thin lines, these wells extract fluid). Note the large number of events associated with the injection wells.



Figure 2. Example of injection related seismicity; note the close correlation between water injection wells and the location of the seismicity.

For additional scientific documentation, see this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

"Fracking" Can Cause Earthquakes
Lawrence Berkeley Lab also points out that hydrofracturing (or "fracking" for short) can cause earthquakes:


Another type of induced seismicity is that which is associated with “hydrofracturing”. Hydrofracturing is done by injecting fluid into the subsurface to create distinct fractures in order to link existing fractures together in order to create permeability in the subsurface. This is done to extract in situ fluids (such as oil and gas). Hydrofracturing is distinct from many types of shear induced seismicity because hydrofracturing is by definition only created when the forces applied create a type of fracture called a tensile fracture, creating a “driven” fracture. Shear failure has been observed associated with hydrofracturing operations, as the fluid leaks off into existing fractures, but due to the very high frequency nature of tensile failure ( seismic source at the crack tip only) only the associated shear failure is observed by microseismic monitoring . However, hydofracturing is such a small perturbation it is rarely, if ever, a hazard when it is used to enhance permeability in oil and gas or other types of fluid extraction activities. To our knowledge hydrofracturing to intentionally create permeability rarely creates unwanted induced seismicity large enough to be detected on the surface even with very sensitive sensors, let alone be a hazard or an annoyance. In fact the very small seismic shear events created from the shear failure associated with the hydrofracture process are used to map the location of the induced permeability and as management toll to optimize fluid production. If not for the very small shear events it would be much more difficult to understand the effect of hydrofracturing because the seismic energy created from the “main fract” is to low to be detected, even from he most sensitive instruments at the surface of the earth Figure 3 is an example of how seismicity is used to map these hydrofractures. Last but not least another reason that the seismic risk is so low associated with hydrofracture operations in that they are of relatively low volume and short durations ( hours or days at the very most) compared to month and years for other type of fluid injections described above.



Figure 3. Cross section through a stimulation well showing six different stages of hydrofracture stimulation and the associated seismicity (magnitude -1.0 to -2.5) during the entire hydrofracture (less than 24 hours) Warpinski et al 2005.

AP reported in February:

Scott Ausbrooks, geohazards supervisor for the Arkansas Geological Survey, said the quakes are part of what is now called the Guy earthquake swarm – a series of mild earthquakes that have been occurring [in Arkansas] periodically since 2009. A similar swarm occurred in the early 1980s when a series of quakes hit Enola, Ark.

Ausbrooks said geologists are still trying to discover the exact cause of the recent seismic activity but have identified two possibilities.

"It could just be a naturally occurring swarm like the Enola swarm, or it could be related to ongoing natural gas exploration in the area," he said.

A major source of natural gas in Arkansas is the Fayetteville Shale, an organically-rich rock formation in north-central Arkansas. Drillers free up the gas by using hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" – injecting pressurized water to create fractures deep in the ground.

Ausbrooks said geologists don't believe the production wells are the problem, but rather the injection wells that are used to dispose of "frack" water when it can no longer be re-used. The wastewater is pressurized and injected into the ground.

***

Ausbrooks said the earthquakes are occurring in the vicinity of several injection wells.

***

[Police Chief Dave Martini] the earthquakes started increasing in frequency over the past week and that the disposal well has seen an increase in use recently.

Websites Ask Whether Fracking Caused the Virgina Quake
Front-page articles at Daily Kos, OpEdNews, and RT ask whether the August 23rd Virginia earthquake was induced by fracking.

I have no idea whether or not this is true, and have been too busy to look at the supposed evidence of drilling near the epicenter of the earthquake.

But given that some human activity is officially acknowledged to be able to induce earthquakes, it's worth asking these types of questions.



****

East Coast Earthquakes Feel Stronger Than Same-Size Earthquakes Occurring Elsewhere


East Coast Earthquakes Are Felt More Widely Than West Coast Earthquakes of the Same Size
Yesterday's 5.8 earthquake in Virginia was felt over a huge area: as far away as Canada, North Carolina, Georgia and Michigan.

In fact, earthquakes on the East Coast are felt more widely than similar-size earthquakes on the West Coast.

NPR reports:

East Coast earthquakes are typically felt in a wider area than those in California. That's because the Earth's crust is more solid in the East, and it carries seismic waves better than in the more fractured West Coast crust.
CNN quotes Rowena Lohman - assistant professor of geophysics and tectonics at Cornell University - to explain:

The West Coast is a much more active region, with earthquakes, volcanoes and high rates of deformation overall and with a relatively warm, "squishy" young crust compared with the old, "cold" rock material underneath the East Coast. This means that the seismic waves that radiate outward from an earthquake in California are absorbed much more and are not felt as strongly as they would be for a similar earthquake here on the East Coast.

Scientists often say that the East Coast "rings like a bell" after an earthquake, with the seismic waves remaining strong over long distances, whereas in California the seismic waves are absorbed relatively quickly, so their effect is more like the thud you'd hear if you rang a wooden bell.

And LiveScience notes:

The shaking was felt over such a large area ... largely because the eastern part of the North American continent is different than the West Coast, where quakes are more common.

***

"The crust is different in the east than in the west," United States Geological Survey (USGS) earthquake geologist David Schwartz told LiveScience. "It's older and colder and denser, and as a result, seismic waves travel much farther in the east than in the west."

Additionally, said Andy Frassetto of the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology, the sediments along the east coast can make quakes feel stronger.

"The sediments of the coastal plain along the eastern seaboard can trap waves as they propagate and produce a minor amplification of the shaking," Frassetto told LiveScience.


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/

Gary Severson
08-26-2011, 02:42 AM
Ed, so do sunspots & flares cause more intercourse since this thread is about eugenics & overpopulation? Maybe HAARP could help AARP in that dept. This is interesting stuff and is probably leading to great discoveries but that doesn't mean CO2 caused by overpopulation isn't speeding up the heating of the Earth. My question was "how could HAARP effect the troposphere when it is being used on the ionosphere"? I can see how the incoming solar activity can effect the ionosphere and then go on to effect the troposphere but that has always been going on with or without HAARP. The increase in CO2 is a recent process causing heating above & beyond the processes in your post.

Greg Burnham
08-26-2011, 04:15 PM
By comparison to other countries, the United States is responsible for the vast majority of atmospheric C02 emissions contributed by humans. However, world census statistics strongly suggest that the United States is not an over-populated nation especially when compared to many third tier countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as in comparison to China and India.

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

Blaming over populated third world countries for increased global temperatures is like blaming rising oil prices on Luxembourg.

Gary Severson
08-26-2011, 05:39 PM
By comparison to other countries, the United States is responsible for the vast majority of atmospheric C02 emissions contributed by humans. However, world census statistics strongly suggest that the United States is not an over-populated nation especially when compared to many third tier countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as in comparison to China and India.

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

Blaming over populated third world countries for increased global temperatures is like blaming rising oil prices on Luxembourg.

I agree, but of course as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem. Western imperialism is intent on taking over those 3rd world economies to cash in on their potential increased consumption with very little concern for the environment it seems.

Greg Burnham
08-26-2011, 10:35 PM
By comparison to other countries, the United States is responsible for the vast majority of atmospheric C02 emissions contributed by humans. However, world census statistics strongly suggest that the United States is not an over-populated nation especially when compared to many third tier countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as in comparison to China and India.

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

Blaming over populated third world countries for increased global temperatures is like blaming rising oil prices on Luxembourg.

I agree, but of course as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem. Western imperialism is intent on taking over those 3rd world economies to cash in on their potential increased consumption with very little concern for the environment it seems.

I agree...to a point. I believe that it is wholly despicable for us (in western "developed" countries) to prevent those in third world countries from enjoying the benefits that we, in the United States, all enjoy! It is wrong to restrict their expansion into a "better life" based on non-specific, ill defined, perhaps even pseudo science.

Gary, you said: "...as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem."

In my view, it is immoral to require those in "developing" countries (due to the "problem" that their consumption would allegedly create) to continue to live beneath the standards that most Americans would be loath to tolerate.

Parity is an interesting commodity in America: "It is of paramount importance when I am the disaffected, but it is irrelevant when I'm on top."

Gary Severson
08-26-2011, 10:58 PM
By comparison to other countries, the United States is responsible for the vast majority of atmospheric C02 emissions contributed by humans. However, world census statistics strongly suggest that the United States is not an over-populated nation especially when compared to many third tier countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as in comparison to China and India.

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

Blaming over populated third world countries for increased global temperatures is like blaming rising oil prices on Luxembourg.

I agree, but of course as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem. Western imperialism is intent on taking over those 3rd world economies to cash in on their potential increased consumption with very little concern for the environment it seems.

I agree...to a point. I believe that it is wholly despicable for us (in western "developed" countries) to prevent those in third world countries from enjoying the benefits that we, in the United States, all enjoy! It is wrong to restrict their expansion into a "better life" based on non-specific, ill defined, perhaps even pseudo science.

Gary, you said: "...as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem."

In my view, it is immoral to require those in "developing" countries (due to the "problem" that their consumption would allegedly create) to continue to live beneath the standards that most Americans would be loath to tolerate.

Parity is an interesting commodity in America: "It is of paramount importance when I am the disaffected, but it is irrelevant when I'm on top."

It isn't despicable when our overconsumption relates to the use of fossil fuels. If you don't think it is detrimental to our atmosphere to have millions of cars on the freeway everyday with one person per vehicle then of course you would say we shouldn't deprive the world of the same opportunity to add CO2 to our common ecosystem. Until alternative fuels are in wide use we have a problem with too many people in too many cars. Gotta go.

Greg Burnham
08-26-2011, 11:27 PM
By comparison to other countries, the United States is responsible for the vast majority of atmospheric C02 emissions contributed by humans. However, world census statistics strongly suggest that the United States is not an over-populated nation especially when compared to many third tier countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as in comparison to China and India.

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

Blaming over populated third world countries for increased global temperatures is like blaming rising oil prices on Luxembourg.

I agree, but of course as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem. Western imperialism is intent on taking over those 3rd world economies to cash in on their potential increased consumption with very little concern for the environment it seems.

I agree...to a point. I believe that it is wholly despicable for us (in western "developed" countries) to prevent those in third world countries from enjoying the benefits that we, in the United States, all enjoy! It is wrong to restrict their expansion into a "better life" based on non-specific, ill defined, perhaps even pseudo science.

Gary, you said: "...as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem."

In my view, it is immoral to require those in "developing" countries (due to the "problem" that their consumption would allegedly create) to continue to live beneath the standards that most Americans would be loath to tolerate.

Parity is an interesting commodity in America: "It is of paramount importance when I am the disaffected, but it is irrelevant when I'm on top."

It isn't despicable when our overconsumption relates to the use of fossil fuels. If you don't think it is detrimental to our atmosphere to have millions of cars on the freeway everyday with one person per vehicle then of course you would say we shouldn't deprive the world of the same opportunity to add CO2 to our common ecosystem. Until alternative fuels are in wide use we have a problem with too many people in too many cars. Gotta go.

Well, Gary--perhaps you have a point.

Let's see if you do.

Gary said:
"It isn't despicable when our overconsumption relates to the use of fossil fuels."

I don't understand what you mean by that statement. In my view, "over-consumption" is simply that: OVER consumption. It is excessive, unnecessary consumption of resources and is, therefore, irresponsible by definition--no matter what the specifics. However, IF our policy of "discouraging (preventing) poverty stricken nations from becoming self-sufficient" is NOT despicable, as you claim (so long as over-consumption relates to fossil fuels), THEN it should be equally "not despicable" for those in Western countries to be subject to the SAME barriers to self sufficiency. We should ALL be restricted from the use of oil based products to fuel vehicles. Period. Or NONE should be so restricted. Parity.

Gary ASSUMED (1):
"If you don't think it is detrimental to our atmosphere to have millions of cars on the freeway everyday with one person per vehicle..."

Well, I never said that did I, Gary? And since I don't believe that either, I guess that one is irrelevant. Next?

Gary continuing said:
"...then of course you would say we shouldn't deprive the world of the same opportunity to add CO2 to our common ecosystem."

Since I didn't say the original (1) the remainder of your comment lacks foundation.

Gary said:
"Until alternative fuels are in wide use we have a problem with too many people in too many cars. Gotta go."

Do you drive a car--EVER? Do you heat your home in the winter at all? If we have too many people in too many cars on this planet, let me ask you this: Who should be the first to surrender their vehicle? Will it be you or those you love? Would you prefer that restrictions on buying automobiles be placed on those who live in places (like third world countries) where poverty has thus far prevented them from acquiring vehicles?

You "gotta go" -- ?

It's after 6:00pm there. If it's too late for a walk, are you driving to where you "gotta go"??? If so, why should you be allowed to own and drive a car given your beliefs about the environment? Why not those in 3rd World countries who have yet to be so blessed? Should you be allowed to own and drive a car for as long as it takes for "the government" to sort all this out? If so, should EVERYONE ELSE on the planet who does not yet own a vehicle be RESTRICTED from acquiring one in the meantime?

Gary Severson
08-27-2011, 03:34 AM
Well Greg it seems since you constantly deny MMGW it follows you don't think it matters that we use cars unwisely in terms of too much fuel use. You assume the rest of the world wants our idiotic consumer way of life. Consumption used to be disease now it is a virtue. I know many native Africans here in Mn. that can't stand the lifestyle we have created in terms of diminishing the value of family because of our mobility & everything it that goes with it.
Have you heard of "the development of underdevelopment"? If not, it is the Western strategy of preventing 3rd world resources from remaining in the hands of the people that live where the resources are. Instead they are extracted by foreigners,us, to be used to create our high standard of living. When the natives finally get too uppity after nationalizing their OWN resources we just invade and re-privatize their economies as in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. So much for our desire to help them modernize unless on our terms. Maybe if we hadn't stolen the 3rd world's resources in the 1st place we wouldn't now be looking at the mad dash for them to catch up when it is too late environmentally speaking.

Greg Burnham
08-27-2011, 10:13 PM
Well Greg it seems since you constantly deny MMGW it follows you don't think it matters that we use cars unwisely in terms of too much fuel use. You assume the rest of the world wants our idiotic consumer way of life. Consumption used to be disease now it is a virtue. I know many native Africans here in Mn. that can't stand the lifestyle we have created in terms of diminishing the value of family because of our mobility & everything it that goes with it.
Have you heard of "the development of underdevelopment"? If not, it is the Western strategy of preventing 3rd world resources from remaining in the hands of the people that live where the resources are. Instead they are extracted by foreigners,us, to be used to create our high standard of living. When the natives finally get too uppity after nationalizing their OWN resources we just invade and re-privatize their economies as in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. So much for our desire to help them modernize unless on our terms. Maybe if we hadn't stolen the 3rd world's resources in the 1st place we wouldn't now be looking at the mad dash for them to catch up when it is too late environmentally speaking.

Can you say straw man? I knew you could. It is interesting to note how you put words in my mouth and dictate to me about my own beliefs! Amazing. Gary, you have misrepresented my position again. I hope you are enjoying "knocking down" arguments that I haven't advanced; arguments that you have fabricated and then assigned to me only to easily defeat them. It is much more difficult for you to defeat my actual argument than it is for you to defeat your own invention.

Gary Severson
08-28-2011, 12:54 AM
How could I possibly be using a strawman when all you ever say is MMGW is false. Please elaborate instead of just accusing.

Ed Jewett
08-28-2011, 01:06 AM
If HAARP is used on the ionesphere how can it effect the jet stream which is in the troposphere?


I posed this question to the author -- as you could have done yourself -- and here is his answer:

"The answer is relatively simple but requires a relatively advanced understanding of how HAARP and the weather both function. Perhaps the easiest response may be to simply go to one of many relevant sites on the internet which provide a good, basic overview of HAARP and how it works. Without going into the technology involved, it would be relatively difficult to answer the question directly. Please direct the questioner to the following site as one example, using the above explanation as an intro.

http://viewzone2.com/haarp00x.html "

Greg Burnham
08-28-2011, 01:08 AM
How could I possibly be using a strawman when all you ever say is MMGW is false. Please elaborate instead of just accusing.

There it is...yet another straw man!

I have not one time said that MMGW is false. I have said that I do not believe that it is possible for anyone to PREDICT the behavior of a random, non-linear, complex system, such as the climate. Chaos Theory pretty much absolutely rules out the possibility of accurately predicting the behavior of such a system.

I don't claim to know for certain if humans are causing an increase in the global temperature, but I highly doubt it. However, I am positive that NOBODY can predict the behavior of a chaotic system. Nobody.

So, to make my position clear: I cannot predict the behavior of a chaotic system to any degree of certainty and neither can you.

Gary Severson
08-28-2011, 01:42 AM
You are arguing something completely different than climatologists who claim mmgw is a scientific fact, i.e. you are the user of straw men.

Gary Severson
08-28-2011, 01:56 AM
If HAARP is used on the ionesphere how can it effect the jet stream which is in the troposphere?


I posed this question to the author -- as you could have done yourself -- and here is his answer:

"The answer is relatively simple but requires a relatively advanced understanding of how HAARP and the weather both function. Perhaps the easiest response may be to simply go to one of many relevant sites on the internet which provide a good, basic overview of HAARP and how it works. Without going into the technology involved, it would be relatively difficult to answer the question directly. Please direct the questioner to the following site as one example, using the above explanation as an intro.

http://viewzone2.com/haarp00x.html "

Your author makes the claim that in the 80s Eastland discovered that radio waves bounced off the ionosphere & that radio signals would travel further. In fact that was known by the 1930s. The 1st commercial radio station in the US was in St.Paul,Mn.,(1925). KSTP could be heard on ships in the WWII far out in the Pacific and they knew that that happened at night because when the Sun goes down the dense, aka, D layer of the ionosphere dissipates & the remaining ionosphere rises to a greater altitude allowing AM radio stations to be heard at great distances after skipping off of it. His credibility isn't very impressive as a result of his misleading info. about Eastland.

Mark Stapleton
08-28-2011, 04:35 PM
Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.



What utter crap you talk.

So what should the human race do?

Keep overpopulating but ensure a high rate of non-consumers?

Greg Burnham
08-28-2011, 04:58 PM
Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.



What utter crap you talk.

So what should the human race do?

Keep overpopulating but ensure a high rate of non-consumers?

You are "begging the question" Mark. We have yet to establish that the planet, as a whole, is over-populated. That is the point of this thread. The topic of the thread is questioning the assumption that there is not enough to go around (aka over-population / Malthusianism). You are assuming the conclusion within your argument, which is circular and therefore fallacious.

I am not denying that there are regions, even nations, that are over-populated if we define over-population as the number of humans within a region in excess of the resources required to sustain them within at least a minimum standard of quality of life. However, all agencies of government as well as private institutions dedicated to feeding the hungry as well as the United Nations report that there is enough food to go around GLOBALLY. Lack of food and resources is NOT the cause of hunger and neediness in the world today. It is lack of distribution due to political and economic considerations.

That we fail to find solutions to the distribution issue is abhorrent in my view. That we are willing to accept a paradigm that is over 200 years old (Malthusianism) that basically is completely fatalistic regarding feeding the hungry is morally negligent at best--especially when modern methods of food production and current data proves the old thinking to be flawed.

Greg Burnham
08-28-2011, 06:36 PM
You are arguing something completely different than climatologists who claim mmgw is a scientific fact, i.e. you are the user of straw men.

Gary,

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the term "Straw Man Argument" and/or what it means in terms of logical fallacies. A Straw Man occurs when: PERSON "1" advances ARGUMENT "A" in a debate and PERSON "2" attempts to rebut that argument by misrepresentation of it. The most common method employed to utilize the Straw Man involves exaggerating the position of PERSON "1" in order to more easily defeat this now weaker argument. As you have aptly demonstrated, most often PERSON "2" has no argument to advance...only fallacious rebuttals.

Ed Jewett
08-28-2011, 06:47 PM
How does all of this [the thread in toto, or its major themes] stack up against such things as the movie End::Civ, the two-volume book "Endgame" and its 20 premises, or the writings of Derrick Jensen? Are they relevant?

http://www.amazon.com/Listening-Land-Conversations-Culture-Interviews/dp/1893956253

http://endciv.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hx-G1uhRqA

http://www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm


In terms of global warming and its causes, what scientific studies, experimentation and controls exist or can exist that control for or differentiate among numerous possible causes?

If man collectively or in terms of mankind (the anthro- factor) must be held accountable (and therefore must prevent the proper response in terms of taxation, regulation and the empowerment of some form of government to take action), and yet it can be argued if not demonstrated that most Western governments are controlled by an elite plutocracy of some form or another, then why must all the people who make up the totality of mankind be forced into a state of mandatory or at least passive compliance with an elite few?

Is not this idea of the totality of man, the collectivist god, just another layer of elitist claptrap?

Phil Dragoo
08-28-2011, 08:03 PM
In 1972 I lived in the experimental house in Carson National Forest four miles up Forest 44 from El Rito which Peter Van Dresser had built.

We were en route to a seminar at the Ghost Ranch facility where Georgia O'Keefe had worked for so long.

Full of a new thing, I asked Peter Van Dresser what he thought of the statement in Diet for a Small Planet that an acre devoted to soy beans produced as much protein as twenty acres devoted to beef.

His reply was instantaneous, gruff, and was meant to be the last word:

"What do you want to do? Populate every square foot of the planet?"

His house was stone and very cold in the winter.

And now George Noory's guests are shrieking doom in re all things soy.

In 1973 there was a movie in which the food allegedly made from soy beans and lentils was at last anthropocentric.

WWPVDD

Gary Severson
08-29-2011, 12:03 AM
You are arguing something completely different than climatologists who claim mmgw is a scientific fact, i.e. you are the user of straw men.

Gary,

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the term "Straw Man Argument" and/or what it means in terms of logical fallacies. A Straw Man occurs when: PERSON "1" advances ARGUMENT "A" in a debate and PERSON "2" attempts to rebut that argument by misrepresentation of it. The most common method employed to utilize the Straw Man involves exaggerating the position of PERSON "1" in order to more easily defeat this now weaker argument. As you have aptly demonstrated, most often PERSON "2" has



no argument to advance...only fallacious rebuttals.

That's right Greg, you are rebutting by misrepresenting what AGW scientists say is their position as their way of predicting the development of GW. They don't need to overcome the chaos of the world's weather systems for a valid argument. They never say they are predicting exact scenarios about the future as you misrepresent their arguments. That is your strawman. What they can show using evidence already documented is that certain things have happened related to CO2 increases.

Greg Burnham
08-29-2011, 12:31 AM
You are arguing something completely different than climatologists who claim mmgw is a scientific fact, i.e. you are the user of straw men.

Gary,

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the term "Straw Man Argument" and/or what it means in terms of logical fallacies. A Straw Man occurs when: PERSON "1" advances ARGUMENT "A" in a debate and PERSON "2" attempts to rebut that argument by misrepresentation of it. The most common method employed to utilize the Straw Man involves exaggerating the position of PERSON "1" in order to more easily defeat this now weaker argument. As you have aptly demonstrated, most often PERSON "2" has



no argument to advance...only fallacious rebuttals.

That's right Greg, you are rebutting by misrepresenting what AGW scientists say is their position as their way of predicting the development of GW. They don't need to overcome the chaos of the world's weather systems for a valid argument. They never say they are predicting exact scenarios about the future as you misrepresent their arguments. That is your strawman. What they can show using evidence already documented is that certain things have happened related to CO2 increases.

The key word here is the word PREDICT. I need not exaggerate their claims. My objection is to predictions of global warming/climate change beyond that which is expected due to seasonal factors, sun activity and/or El Nino and La Nina. Certainly predictions, such as, the "Himalayan Glaciers will be melted by 2035" is such an ill advised prediction.

Gary Severson
08-29-2011, 12:42 AM
Of course some extrapolations are oversights by some. Glacier National Park had 125 glaciers 100 yrs. ago or less. It now has 25 & rapidly losing the those. There are phenomena like that that relate to statements about the Himalayas because its glaciers are also rapidly melting. Of course its higher elevations mean it won't lose them as soon. The fear is, as you know, if they all melted the 2-3 billion people that depend on their water will be outa luck. One would think desalinization will ultimately be the solution for water shortages.

Mark Stapleton
08-29-2011, 02:39 PM
That is the point of this thread. The topic of the thread is questioning the assumption that there is not enough to go around (aka over-population / Malthusianism). You are assuming the conclusion within your argument, which is circular and therefore fallacious.




The question of whether there is enough food and resources available (to ensure a reasonable living standard) depends largely on the rate of human population growth doesn't it?

You seem obsessed with one side of the equation while ignoring the other side.

Humans share this planet. We don't own it. How many habitats and ecosystems of other species do you need to destroy before you are satisfied?

You're addicted to human population growth. You're a junkie.

You need a new job.

Greg Burnham
08-29-2011, 03:07 PM
Of course some extrapolations are oversights by some. Glacier National Park had 125 glaciers 100 yrs. ago or less. It now has 25 & rapidly losing the those. There are phenomena like that that relate to statements about the Himalayas because its glaciers are also rapidly melting. Of course its higher elevations mean it won't lose them as soon. The fear is, as you know, if they all melted the 2-3 billion people that depend on their water will be outa luck. One would think desalinization will ultimately be the solution for water shortages.

List of Expanding Glaciers (http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm)

Here's a (partial) list of the specific glaciers that are growing

(There are many more)

India - Record snowfall revives 2,000 glaciers
17 Feb 11 - Already more snowfall this month than
1998 record for the entire month. Think you'll see
this in the mainstream media?
See India - Record snowfall revives 2,000 glaciers


NORWAY
Ålfotbreen Glacier
Briksdalsbreen Glacier
Nigardsbreen Glacier
Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
Hansebreen Glacier
Jostefonn Glacier
Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier
is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a
part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier,
which has steadily increased in mass since the
1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)

Norway's glaciers growing at record pace. The face of the Briksdal glacier,
an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe, is growing by an average 7.2 inches (18 cm) per day. (From the Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende.)


Click here to see mass balance of Norwegian glaciers:
http://www.nve.no/

Choose "English" (at top of the page), choose "Water,"
then "Hydrology," then "Glaciers and Snow" from the menu.
You'll see a list of all significant glaciers in Norway.
(Thanks to Leif-K. Hansen for this info.)
CANADA
Helm Glacier
Place Glacier

Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
17 Nov 08 – The ice-covered peak of Yukon's soaring Mount Logan
may be due for an official re-measurement after readings that suggest
this country's superlative summit has experienced a growth spurt.
See Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain

FRANCE
Mt. Blanc - See Mont Blanc Glacier almost doubles in size

ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier

Italy
Winter snows did not all melt on Italy’s Presena Glacier this summer
10 Nov 09 - 'Their massive base depth last season meant it didn’t all melt
over the summer so they have nearly a metre and a half of snow on the glacier ski area already." (The second story of this kind in two years.)
See Winter snows did not all melt on Italy’s Presena Glacier this summer


Glaciers growing in Italy
8 Feb 11 - Glaciers are growing on two different mountains in Italy - Mount Canin and Mount Montasio. Will you see this in the main-stream media?
Glaciers growing in Italy
SWITZERLAND
Silvretta Glacier
KIRGHIZTAN
Abramov
RUSSIA
Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. See below)

GREENLAND See Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker
Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! The BBC recently ran
a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice
age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade,
say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf
Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.
One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance,
moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a
transcript of the documentary,
go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml


Greenland Ice Sheet Growing Thicker
4 Nov 05 - After gathering data for more than ten years, a team of
Norwegian-led scientists has found that the Greenland Ice Sheet is
actually growing thicker at its interior.
See Greenland Ice Sheet Growing Thicker


Rebellious Greenland Glacier Keeps Growing
26 July 10 - Berlingske Glacier has steadily grown for the past
100 years. And yet, it's not counted in the glacier inventory. Why
haven't we heard about this growing glacier?
See Rebellious Greenland Glacier Keeps Growing
.
.

CHILE
Pio XI, the largest glacier in South America, grows
50 meters in height, length and density every day.
See Pio XI - Largest glacier in Chile - Growing every day

NEW ZEALAND
All 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.
The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where they
gained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the
foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27 May 2003)
See New Zealand Glaciers Growing

Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend - New Zealand's
two best-known glaciers are still on the march
31 Jan 07 - See Franz Josef Glacier still on the march

See also Pesky New Zealand Glaciers Growing

See also: Contrarian New Zealand Glaciers Keep Growing


ARGENTINA
Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier, the largest glacier in Patagonia,
is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation,
30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice
Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile,
is the world's third largest reserve of fresh water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perito_Moreno_Glacier

UNITED STATES
- Colorado (scroll down to see AP article)
- Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier* and Mt. Shuksan
- California (Mount Shasta - scroll down for info)
- Montana (scroll down for info)
- Glacier Peak, WA (scroll down for info
- Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard).

SPAIN
Glaciers growing in Spain (Pyrinees)
10 Jan 11 - El glaciar del Infierno (glacier of Hell) has advanced.
The mainstream media seems to have somehow missed this.
See Glaciers growing in Spain (Pyrinees)



Antarctica growing colder - Ice expanding
18 Apr 09 - "Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica," says this
article. In addition, the South Pole has shown "significant cooling
in recent decades".
See Antarctica growing colder - Ice expanding



Antarctic ice grows to record levels
13 Sep 07 - While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed
in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern
Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder
and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting,
See Antarctic ice grows to record levels


Oops - West Antarctic Ice Sheet
not losing ice as fast as we thought
20 Oct 09 — New measurements by
GPS Network suggest the rate of ice
loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet
has been slightly overestimated.
See Oops - West Antarctic Ice Sheet not losing ice as fast as we thought

.

Antarctica's Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf is growing
7 Dec 05 – Scientists Joughin and Bamber re-evaluated the mass balances
of the ice in Antarctica. "It is clear from the results of this study that the
Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf is not rapidly, or even slowly, wasting away.
Quite to the contrary, it is growing."
See Antarctica's Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf growing



Alaska's Hubbard Glacier advancing 7 feet per day!
10 May 09 – This from climatologist Cliff Harris of the Coeur d’Alene Press.
It's possible that the glacier could close the fjord by later this summer if the
current rate speeds up, says Harris.
See Alaska's Hubbard Glacier advancing 7 feet per day!



Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
19 Feb 08 - A Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
See Most snow cover since 1966
.
.

Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier Advancing Three Feet Per Day
25 Jun 07 - See Crater Glacier


Against odds, glacier grows in cauldron of Mt. St. Helens
15 May 08 – See Glacier grows in cauldron of Mt. St. Helens


Mount St. Helens glacier (Crater Glacier) growing 50 feet per year
September 20, 2004 - See Mount St. Helens

Glaciers growing on California's Mount Shasta!
12 Oct 03 - See Mount Shasta Glaciers Growing
9 Jul 08 - See also California Glaciers Growing
28 Mar 11 - See also Glaciers growing on Mt. Shasta

Geologists Unexpectedly Find 100 Glaciers in Colorado
7 Oct 01 See Colorado Glaciers Growing


Washington's Nisqually Glacier Advancing
But headline says "State's shrinking glaciers: Going ... going ... gone?"
1 Nov 06 - As far as I’m concerned, this Seattle Times article is another
case of misleading - if not downright dishonest - reporting.
See Nisqually Glacier Advancing
See also Nisqually Glacier

Glaciers in Montana's Glacier Park on the verge of growing
5 Oct 2002. See Glacier Park


Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thicker
See Antarctic Icecap Growing Thicker
See Construction crane buried in the Antarctic Ice Sheet


Largest glacier in Argentina advancing
15 Jun 09 – "Argentina's Perito Moreno glacier is (supposedly) one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures.”
See Largest glacier in Argentina advancing



Alaska's Hubbard Glacier advancing 7 feet per day!
10 May 09 – This from climatologist Cliff Harris of the Coeur d’Alene Press.
It's possible that the glacier could close the fjord by later this summer if the
current rate speeds up, says Harris.
See Alaska's Hubbard Glacier advancing 7 feet per day!


Glaciers growing on Glacier Peak, WA
16 Oct 08 – Email from reader
Before I moved to CO in 2005 it was obvious that the glaciers and snow
had receded and rock was visible in areas all the way to the peak. The glaciers
and snow are back now ... completely covered in white from top to bottom,
and this is after the "warm" summer months here in the PNW.
See Glaciers growing on Glacier Peak, WA
.

Glaciers in Norway Growing Again
Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors
results in Alaska, elsewhere, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate.
See Glaciers in Norway Growing Again



Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding
Arctic ice cover above it’s 30-year average
23 Nov 08 - A study published by the American Meteorological Society
found that glaciers are only shrinking in the eastern Himalayas. Further
west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers are "thickening
and expanding".
See Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding
.
.
Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
16 Oct 08 - High snowfall and cold weather to blame leading
to the increase in glacial mass.
See Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
.
.
Growing Alaskan glaciers the start of a new Little Ice Age?
14 Oct 08 – “Never before in the history of a research project dating back
to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that
came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
See Growing Alaskan glaciers the start of a new Little Ice Age?
.
.
Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
Glacial Experts Question Theory of Global Warming
15 Feb 07 - See Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
.
.
Many people have asked why some glaciers in South America are melting.
I think it is perfectly understandable. Remember, we have had two of the
strongest El Ninos on record during the past 21 years. During an El Nino,
a narrow band of the Pacific Ocean warms by as much as 14 degrees. This
band of warm water travels east essentially along the equator until it slams
into South America.

It seems logical that the increased rainfall caused by El Nino, plus the
warmer winds blowing across the warmer water, could hasten glacial melt.
But let me say it again. I do not believe that this is caused by humans, I think
it is caused by the El Nino phenomenon, which is caused by underwater
volcanism, which is increasing due to the ice-age cycle.

With this said, let me point out many glaciers in South America remain
stable, and some - including the Pio XI Glacier and the Perito Moreno
Glacier - are growing. The Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the
southern hemisphere. The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Patagonia.

I find it curious that news reports do not mention these two glaciers.

* * *

Contrary to previous reports, Arctic ice did not thin during the 1990s, say
researchers at the Department of Oceanography at Göteborg University in
Göteborg, Sweden. http://www.envirotruth.org/images/ice-in-90s.pdf

.
.
Alaska Glacier Surges -17 Mar 06
See McGinnis Glacier
.
.
Look at what's happening on Mt. Baker, in Washington State.
(Mt. Baker is near Mt. Shukson, where glaciers are now growing.)



This is a photo of my friend Jim Terrell taken on
Mt. Baker, Washington. Jim is more than six feet
tall. See the black line about six feet above his head?
That's where the snow from the winter of 1998/99
stopped melting. Above that, is snow that never
melted from the winter of 1999/2000. Why isn't
the media reporting this sort of thing?


Photo by Mazz Terrell
19 July 2000

..

Fast forward 11 years and we find...
Snow still five stories deep on Mt. Baker road
13 Jul 11 - “Deepest snow I’ve seen since the world-record year 1999, when the highway didn’t open for the summer,” says maintenance supervisor.
See Snow still five stories deep on Mount Baker road

See also Growing_Glaciers
See also Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker
and Antarctic Icecap Growing Thicker

Gary Severson
08-29-2011, 03:35 PM
Are glaciers growing or retreating?

Below is why the media doesn't report anything about growing glaciers. Click on intermediate for more in depth info.



Link to this page (http://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=71)
The skeptic argument...


Glaciers are growing
"Reports are coming in from all over the world: for the first time in over 250 years, glaciers in Alaska, Canada, New Zealand, Greenland, and now Norway are growing." (JamulBlog (http://www.jamulblog.com/2008/11/glaciers-growing.html))

What the science says...

Select a level... http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/level1.gif Basic
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/level2.gif Intermediate (http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing-intermediate.htm)

Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water. Although Glaciologists measure year-to-year changes in glacier activity, it is the long term changes which provide the basis for statements such as "Global Glacier Recession Continues". Some Skeptics confuse these issues by cherry picking individual glaciers (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/27/glaciers-in-norway-alaska-growing-again/)or by ignoring long term trends (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/27/glaciers-in-norway-alaska-growing-again/). Diversions such as these do not address the most important question of what is the real state of glaciers globally?

The answer is not only clear but it is definitive and based on the scientific literature. Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalGlacierVolumeChange.jpg
Figure 1: Long term changes in glacier volume adapted from Cogley 2009 (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/global-data-sets/GLACIER_cogley_arithmetic.txt).

It is also very important to understand that glacier changes are not only dictated by air temperature changes but also by precipitation. Therefore, there are scenarios in which warming can lead to increases in precipitation (and thus glacier ice accumulation) such as displayed in part of southwestern Norway during the 1990s (Nesje et al 2008 (http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/geofag/GEG2130/h09/Reading%20list/Norwegian%20mountain%20glaciers%20in%20the%20past, %20present%20and%20future.pdf)).

The bottom line is that glacier variations can be dependent on localized conditions but that these variations are superimposed on a clear and evident long term global reduction in glacier volume which has accelerated rapidly since the 1970s.

Greg Burnham
08-29-2011, 10:00 PM
That is the point of this thread. The topic of the thread is questioning the assumption that there is not enough to go around (aka over-population / Malthusianism). You are assuming the conclusion within your argument, which is circular and therefore fallacious.




The question of whether there is enough food and resources available (to ensure a reasonable living standard) depends largely on the rate of human population growth doesn't it?

You seem obsessed with one side of the equation while ignoring the other side.

Humans share this planet. We don't own it. How many habitats and ecosystems of other species do you need to destroy before you are satisfied?

You're addicted to human population growth. You're a junkie.

You need a new job.

You are completely off base. I do not advocate population growth. Are you dense or something? I am of the belief, based on CURRENT DATA, that there are sufficient resources to feed even those people in over-populated 3rd world countries. Thomas Malthus' own theory has been proved incorrect by the facts. He is perhaps not entirely to blame, after all, who in his day could have foreseen the advances we've made in food production?

Find another thread in which to vent your spleen.

:moon:

Mark Stapleton
08-30-2011, 03:49 PM
You are completely off base. I do not advocate population growth. Are you dense or something?




But you do advocate population growth. The evidence comes from your own posts.

In post #109 you state: Over population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the miniscule increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.


Way back in post #1 you state: The Malthusian/Darwinian paradigm limits our ability to truly support the human race because of its inappropriately catastrophic view of population growth

And there's the title of the thread itself: Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device.

Your inexplicable inability to recognise exponential human population growth as the root cause of all our current food, resource and environmental problems renders me speechless, but I wouldn't call you dense.

However, I think Malthus was more rational than you are. Maybe that's because he wasn't a real estate agent.

Greg Burnham
08-30-2011, 04:50 PM
Mark,

You've been attempting to make this personal for a number of posts. Stay on the topic and don't attack the person. Population Growth ALARMISM -- is the key phrase--ALARMISM. I am not advocating population growth. I am questioning the catastrophic view of the world as promoted by Malthus, in which he says that there is not enough to go around. Obviously if there IS currently plenty to go around (as every source reports from the United Nations to private hunger organizations) then there is no need for any to be starving to death as they now are. The problem is not with supply it is with distribution and with various political/economic factors.

Are you incapable of comprehending what I said about over population not being the source of increased C02? Try to stay with me on this one: If it was true that over population is the reason for increased C02, then the United States, which is not over populated, would not be the world's largest contributor to C02 emissions--India would be. But, as it is, the United States is the highest contributor and not over populated--so there is no direct correlation between population and increased C02.

You may not like THE FACTS, but there they are. If you doubt them--do some research for yourself and report back. If you find that I'm wrong from your facts I will investigate and honestly admit if I'm in error.





You are completely off base. I do not advocate population growth. Are you dense or something?




But you do advocate population growth. The evidence comes from your own posts.

In post #109 you state: Over population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the miniscule increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.


Way back in post #1 you state: The Malthusian/Darwinian paradigm limits our ability to truly support the human race because of its inappropriately catastrophic view of population growth

And there's the title of the thread itself: Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device.

Your inexplicable inability to recognise exponential human population growth as the root cause of all our current food, resource and environmental problems renders me speechless, but I wouldn't call you dense.

However, I think Malthus was more rational than you are. Maybe that's because he wasn't a real estate agent.

Mark Stapleton
09-01-2011, 06:02 PM
You've been attempting to make this personal for a number of posts. Stay on the topic and don't attack the person. Population Growth ALARMISM -- is the key phrase--ALARMISM.




OK.


The topic is ALARMISM.


And the key phrase is Population Growth ALARMISM. I get it.


Does this mean I'm prone to raising alarms without sufficient reason? Exaggerating dangers and all that?


Clever manoeuvre. I'm a population growth alarmist. There's no place for me on this thread.