Climate activists believe that schoolchildren should be murdered by their teachers, to protect them from global warming
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FkB4uiizVo]
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
- conrad ziefle on The End Of Everything
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks on Election Results
- Robert Austin on The End Of Everything
- czechlist on Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- arn on The End Of Everything
- Gamecock on The End Of Everything
Climate activists don’t have the conviction to take themselves out as well.
At the end of that movie it says that their program saved 500,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions in 6 months. What a joke. 500 thousand!!
Humans generate 1,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 a year by breathing. One gigaton.
If 8 billion people burn 2000 calories a day, at 4 calories per gram of food, that’s 500 grams, which produces 350 grams of CO2 and 150 grams of H2O.
350 grams x 365 days a year = 127 kilograms = 1/8 tonne (1/8 metric ton)
x 8 billion people = one gigatonne
By breathing!
8 billion people? are you for real lol?
The world population will peak at 8.7 billion people in 2055 and then decline to 8 billion by 2100, according to new research by Deutsche Bank. Present population is 7 billion.
I did some research into earths population a few years ago, I couldn’t find all these people.. there are 7 billion people on the planet at present based on a 1990’s model forecast and there were 6 billion people on the planet based on a model before that. I am being sceptical of UN population models. I’m just saying out of interest. Gail do you remember the old websites during the 90’s and 2000’s that used to have population counters on them? they were all based on this population logarithm and a lot of them were running at 8 billion by 2000.
Gail, I have a hard time believing that 8 billion decline because it doesn’t jibe with the fertility rate charts produced by the World Bank, CIA, and the U.N, although the peak population number does. Most countries have fertility rates below that needed to sustain populations now. The exceptions are the African countries, but they will not be able to sustain the 4+ rate even with the help of Monsanto corn (sarc). The study I read based on those charts shows a drastic decline in population by 2100. It may be worse than that. The Europeans and the U.S. will have a much older population without young people to support the elderly social programs.. The same will be true for some other countries, I suspect. The average European fertility rate is 1.5. Assuming no great famines, devastating wars, or little ice ages, you need 2.1 births per female to sustain.
Sparks and Ernest,
I would not be at all surprised that the population is not as high as said and that it is now declining. 4 live births/woman in Africa does not take into account the number who have died before puberty.
deaths by age 5
Remember the population Bomb’ was another one of the elites scare stories.
Gail, you are right. I had forgotten how horrible infant and child mortality rates are in Africa. There are cheap alternatives that don’t interfere with tribal lifestyles that could do much to improve this. Solar Cookers to improve the health of women and children and stop deforestation, and simple water pasteurizers that could be manufactured in country. Instead Western governments insist on expensive technological solutions that are not sustainable by the low-tech populations.
You’re both paddling out of your depth on this subject.. I know for a fact a surgery in Africa had solar panels installed that could only run the lights or their fridge, they can either keep their medicine refrigerated or use the lights, disgusting!! What they need is a reliable power source and not some gimmick adapted as an anthropogenic “climate change” measure. The stupidity is borderline malice, it sickens me!
Sparks, You are correct, Africa needs decent reliable power. However one of the problems is trying to graft an advanced civilization on to a primitive one. You can build the stuff but they can not repair it and they will steal the projects blind. It is the same old, same old. If they do not work for it then it is not theirs. Worse you have those who ‘help’ with the goal of theft of resources.
E.M. Smith mentions something that is doable that was worked out in the 1970s. link Once they are off the poverty treadmill then they have a shot at advancing.
Last I checked, the US is the only country on this planet that accurately records infant mortality, some countries do not record an infant death until that child is over the age of one.
“… any infant born in the United States that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth, whereas in most of the European Union any baby born before 26 weeks’ gestation is not considered alive and therefore doesn’t “count” in reported infant mortality rates.”
No pressure = vacuum! And we thought high explosives were involved! The threat of “no pressure” is being tossed out the air lock into the vacuum of space–splat!
They are both State funded.
And both hope to make anyone who is not down with their agenda (21) dead.
Climate activists win the prize because their policies have killed more people than terrorists.
One of the first EcoTerrorists were Nazis. They believed in a Green and Sustainable Earth–and the Nazi genocide was intended for ecological reasons. Who argues that the Nazis were not terrorists? Some may argue that Nazis were not part of the environmentalism movement, but the evidence says otherwise.
Hitler was definitely excited by the progressive agenda and beliefs of the Fabian Society. But then, so was Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.
Co-founder of the Fabian Society, George Bernard Shaw was pro-Hitler and recommended the use of the gas chamber on undesirables. The Real George Bernard Shaw
Interesting I had five links to the quotes from Shaw and 4 have now been deleted including:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37106239/The-Real-George-Bernard-Shaw-–-Fabian-Socialist-and-Hitlerian-Advocate-of-Mass-Murder
They really are trying to erase all the evil things said and done during the Roosevelt-Wilson era off the internet. Half of my links that held direct quotes have disappeared from the net. Even Margaret Sanger’s racist comments and writings are getting harder to find.
Ernest:
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood
In Her Own Words
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
But still take a back seat to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
That was a response to nigelf, WordPress makes clarity difficult.
As the (very) old joke goes; What’s the difference between a climate activist and a bucket of Poo? Answer: The bucket.
How about this warning from 1973?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070046/
“Executive Action” was a fictional account of a conspiracy that resulted in regime change.
Though the first JFK assassination conspiracy movie in the mainstream, one segment is noteworthy: according to the dialog, Vietnam was a population control measure. Burt Lancaster was telling a co-conspirator that “within two decades” Earth’s population would be seven billion. By pulling an all-out effort, the conspirators hoped to reduce Earth’s human numbers to 550 million by the end of the century. The movie was set in 1962 and 1963.
Remember, this was fiction. The “bad guys” were into population control.
Want to reduce human carbon dioxide emissions? Reduce the number of humans.
As carbon dioxide has little to do with climate change, the purpose of carbon emission reduction may very well be an excuse for genocide.
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and founder of the UN Foundation and a major UN donor
The Elite want a reduced population because 250-300 million people is much much easier to control. The USA has a population of 316.1 million.
The Elite are incompetent! Do the math. 300 million people are inadequate to support the Elites in the manner that they are accustomed to. I’m going to steal Tony’s “try something smaller, like a bowling ball” and suggest that they don’t know what “control” means. The Elite doesn’t know economics, doesn’t know technology, doesn’t know force. How many of those 300 million genocide survivors will be police? What will be the fate of those carrying out the Elite’s genocide? Who will watch the watchers? How paranoid will the Elite become after murdering seven billion other human beings?
Okay that’s a step into coo coo land! lol hilarious.
Not incompetent just long range planners. Here is an example of a plan started in 1945 and just now finished. link
What Is The Difference between Climate Activists And Terrorists?
Terrorists tend to be emotionally more mature.
Additionally, one can, in theory, negotiate with terrorists.
But only in theory, unless one wants more terrorism and less freedom.
It are not the terrorists who take away your freedom. It is government . That is why you fought the war against the British Empire.In that big country far away from the homeland people again learnt what freedom meant. They thought It was worth fighting for.
Giving in to terrorist demands means changing policy without the consent of the governed, taking away our freedom to make our own decisions. The colonists did not go around the globe demanding a caliphate.
Strawman alert!
The colonists did not go around the globe demanding a caliphate.
http://youtu.be/nLABrjgZ2PU
Yes they did.
Ones they had conquered all the other nations on the American continent they moved out to occupy the rest of the world. Today they think they rule the world and can bomb wherever and whoever they want.
No, they didn’t.
The French, Spanish and English were the main oppressors of the world, we fought their oppression and won. We fought to free men, Islam fights to control men.
Couldn’t find any cartoons to back your assertions?
So hard fighting to free men but losing your freedom at home. Congratulations.
Wow. I guess there are no free men in your world, and everyone is guilty.
In my world it is not pass or fail. I see shades of grey, even color.
Sorry you are so blind.
Just imagine what an evil dictator could do with all this information.
Reply
gator69 says:
January 6, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Who needs to imagine?
Wanted or not, that’s what we got.
The current Muslim terrorists don’t seem to want to negotiate. Also, don’t be so quick to blame the U.S. for the status of the Mideast. The English and the French colluded to form a secret agreement to split the Mideast into nation states that guaranteed the inhabitants would be fighting each other rather than presenting a united front in World War I. See Sykes-Picot. We were attempting to stay out of that war at the time. The mess there today is a result of Sykes-Picot and the aftermath. The British were already after the oil.
I would not say that terrorists who seem to enjoy beheading captives and shooting their own people in the back are emotionally mature. I would say they are inhumanly perverted and should not be allowed to stand among the nations of the world.
As far as the Indian nations went, they were all in decline before the colonists showed up. A contributing factor was probably the constant warring among them for territory and slaves. Climate didn’t help. If we have shame here, it is that the Democrat led governments of the first half of the 1800s didn’t understand that when you signed a treaty, you agreed to abide by it.
The difference is that terrorists are not in positions of power.
Terrorists often occupy positions of power–terrorism is a tactic of violent intimidation. The Ku Klux Klan was effective as long as it had sponsors in positions of power–today the Klan is a joke, replaced in its mission of furthering Democratic Party Power by other terrorists. Speaking of communists, China and Cuba practice terrorism on their own citizens–as did the USSR. Imperial Japan routinely used terrorism in the areas under its control. Who argues that Nazi Germany wasn’t a terroristic state?
No, try again–terrorists often occupy positions of power.
Eco-terrorism could not exist without the approval of some people in positions of power. Green Peace would be squashed like a noxious insect, otherwise. If those people in power need a pawn to trade Green Peace will be squashed.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/09/01/ex-cia-employee-admits-president-obama-radical-islamic-enemy-america/
The only reason ISIS exists is the have a reason to bomb Bashar al-Assad out of power.
http://viola.bz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Bashar-Hafez-Al-Assad-1.jpg
That must be some sort of a sadistic spoof. That cannot possibly be a real advertisement. Please, someone tell me that that is some sort of disgusting joke.
It was for real. The organization produced it to try to bring more awareness about how horrible global warming was becoming (sarc) . They apparently were too stupid to realize what a negative backlash it was going to cause. Google “splattergate.”
“splattergate.”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/11/12/splattergate-six-weeks-later/
“That must be some sort of a sadistic spoof.”
Hard to believe, but no, that is real. When it came out I really did wonder whether it was a spoof — but when I checked, I found out that it was not. It is still stunning; how on earth could the producers have thought that it would generate support? “Gee! How’s this for an idea? Child murder! You know, graphic, gory, blood-in-your-face child murder! I mean, nothing says compassion for our planet like child murder! Who’s with me?!”
Look on the bright side: the removed 10% won’t be subject to a life “nasty, brutish and short”.
Just keep in mind that the creators of this horrible video (which I have never watched – I had someone watch it and describe it to me – I refuse to watch snuff fiction) thought it was “funny”.
Yes, they were actually quoted as saying that (I paraphrase), “some people did not understand our sense of humor.”
“Remember, the plan was to show the 4-minute flick in cinemas prior to the main attraction…..”
It had nothing to do with humor.
The warmists made this flick to be shown to all movie goers (read children and teens) as a subtle threat. Yet these same warmist who see nothing wrong with showing kids being blown-up had a complete hissy fit when the Heartland Institute had a global warming billboard starring Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber whose manifesto expressed his belief in catastrophic man-caused global warming.
Hey Gail! “It had nothing to do with humor.”
I would respectfully disagree. Here is part of the 10:10 press release in the immediate aftermath:
Begin quote:
Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.
With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
End quote.
On the other hand, I think you are right to say: “The warmists made this flick to be shown to all movie goers (read children and teens) as a subtle threat.”
These are not normal people. They have no problem with issuing a threat AND seeing it as funny at the same time. I used to work in the motion picture business (decades ago) and having sat in on numerous bits of script writing, and advertising and promotional sessions, I assure you — there is no bottom to the pit of what they see as funny. They really do believe that they are so deeply sophisticated that they understand matters in a way the public is too dull to see.