Who do we blame for pollution?

[donnashuggy]

the consumer

the advertiser

the manufacturer

the government

the naive

the rich man

the poor man

feel free to add to the list, I am going out with dark glasses on in case someone decides to light fireworks

have a good one everyone!

[ashjoma]

I bet you do too, lakeland27.

[ashjoma]

Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

Quote by Gordon Brown, former British prime minister: "A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis."

Quote by René Dubos, French scientist, environmentalist, author of the maxim "Think globally, act locally": "Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer: "The fate of mankind, as well as religion, depends on the emergence of a new faith in the future. Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth."

[ashjoma]

Quote by Club of Rome: "The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."

Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: "The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing."

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”





This is what the elite types think of us, the unwashed masses, enter agenda 21, and ICLEI, to name a few, and the push to a one world govt, has to be done slowly otherwise too obvious.

Note the borders in the UK came down today, the UK must accept those from Europe who wish to turn up and claim benefits

The EU has now introduced the EU logo on birth certificates instead of that of individual countries

The EU is pushing its own laws though overriding that of individual countries.

Speechwriter Andrew Neather has spoken about the UK deliberately introducing a toxic multiculturalism in order to destroy the UK and remove national identity.

[monman12]

Prove that any climate change is not natural variation....prove that any rate of change is not natural.

You still have no concept of  The Scientific Method SRBA, as  proof is not relevant,  try probability/evidence.

I  assume you have absolutely no idea what I mean when  I write (often) that climate change variation still needs to be shown (outside of natural climate noise) to  be associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions to an acceptable scientific  degree of probability. The hypothesis is sound and the evidence is inexorably  mounting.

:prove that any rate of change is not natural." ????

"rate of change of what "?

Again: Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

nɥºɾ

[acacia_pycnantha]

Well I'd blame our economic system (capitalism) for pollution.

it's a system which motivates people to make and to market unnecessary products, cut down the forests for woodchipping, dig up the minerals, produce a myriad different models of car (when just one good one is all we need).

We live in a world of finite resources and yet we (they, the "entrepreneurs") behave as if there were no tomorrow in the effort to make a fast buck.

For them, personally, I don't think they care very much about leaving anything for tomorrow for the people who will inherit the results of their destructive activities.

[darksideofthemoon]

Phew!  Someone who talks sense and makes sense too....  I couldn't agree more.  time to cut down on large families and begin to think about the future of the planet if people continue to reproduce.

It's crazy that no one can see where the trouble lies - it lies in overpopulation.  Cut that by half in the next 100 years and we might get the idea that this is the way to go.  It might even become a habit.

Thanks polo, nice to meet you 

[darksideofthemoon]

Time you caught up on some planetary history paints.  The planet heats up and cools down all the time, it's nothing new, so yes, 50% the planet's natural cycle.

Then there are an estimated 7.134 billion humans on the planet all producing Methane Gass, which is far more serious than carbon, and ask me to explain how that is done, go read about it.

So yes 50% humanity, and it's no good blaming anyone in power today.  It didn't start recently,  it started many, many years ago, before anyone understood what was causing the problems... 

So, go read and learn 

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

---

@monman12 wrote:

Prove that any climate change is not natural variation....prove that any rate of change is not natural.

You still have no concept of  The Scientific Method SRBA, as  proof is not relevant,  try probability/evidence.

I  assume you have absolutely no idea what I mean when  I write (often) that climate change variation still needs to be shown (outside of natural climate noise) to  be associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions to an acceptable scientific  degree of probability. The hypothesis is sound and the evidence is inexorably  mounting.

:prove that any rate of change is not natural." ????

"rate of change of what "?

Again: Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

nɥºɾ

---

That is merely, your opinion...........and thankfully irrelevant!

You can't prove that any change is outside of natural variation......there are many theories why climate changes....yours doesn't seem to be panning out very well.............. lol.

Real world observations, just don't support your alarmist theory.........based on evidence, you should reject it.......giggle....

[***super_nova***]

---

@darksideofthemoon wrote:

 time to cut down on large families and begin to think about the future of the planet if people continue to reproduce.

---

That is what the Chinese have done and how we criticized them.  I always wondered why people think it such a bad idea for a nation that even with the 1 child policy has a rapidly rising population, and now with that policy being relaxed, will reach 1.5 billion in no time at all - it is 1.3 billions now.

"Growth" is the center of out economy model, and that is just so wrong; it really is just one huge pyramid scheme.  And we all know that pyramid schemes are unsustainable and therefore are illegal - ironic isn't it.

In nature most animal babies born die early in their life and provide food for another animal, and the balance is maintained. While populations fluctuate the balance is always restored - if there is too many of one species, they run out of food and their numbers decrease.  As we are able to protect our babies from early death, and we can deal with food shortages, we need to reduce the number of birth. 
But, that would be an enormous task in democracy - there is no way the far right would ever support that because less population = less consumption and that would mean reduced profits, and that is totally against their goals. 

[*mrgrizz*]

---

@darksideofthemoon wrote:

Phew!  Someone who talks sense and makes sense too....  I couldn't agree more.  time to cut down on large families and begin to think about the future of the planet if people continue to reproduce.

It's crazy that no one can see where the trouble lies - it lies in overpopulation.  Cut that by half in the next 100 years and we might get the idea that this is the way to go.  It might even become a habit.

Thanks polo, nice to meet you 

---

but that would effect the economy