I understand why it is a mistake to compare the past with the present. New technology changes the way we look at things. When i was in high school Pluto had been considered a planet for 50 years. It was another 20 before astronomers determined that it wasn't a planet.

Pluto being classified as a planet is obviously different than climate science but this mistake was continuously being made until recently. Several astronomers had been investigating different things for the last couple of decades (equipped with better tools) and all of a sudden a new discovery was made that changed the truth.

1930 might as well have been the dark ages in terms of technology but that "truth" stopped being true within the last decade. My point is that while i believe (based on information i have received from print/web/video) that humans are playing a major role in global warming... i can totally understand why someone else might be skeptical.

The danger here is that making a mistake about what to call pluto wont kill the only planet we are able to inhabit. So rather than continuously pushing the facts about global warming i think the energy would be better directed at eliminating pollution and controlling the population via education and fiscal reward/tax breaks.

Pollution isn't a theory that the deniers can dismiss. End pollution, end our involvement in global warming. Ask a denier to drink a glass of that pristine great lakes freshwater and see how fast they spit it up. If they ever saw what a clean lake looked like they would probably go home and hang themselves.

Pluto wasn't really a mistake. As new information and objects came to be known further classifications were created: Pluto wasn't really mistakenly called a planet and is now not a planet, it was reclassified into a dwarf planet. It's still an icey ball of rock.

A serious mistake would be to consider it a star for 50 years then to come to the conclusion that it's really just an icey rock. That would be a Doh!

I don't see this as a reason to take what current science says about climate change with a grain of salt, I see it as the process working. New information came to light and was acknowledged in the known body of evidence and theory.

This has been the evolution of what's been happening in climate science for the last few decades. The theory was hypothesized in the 1800's, tested in the lab, verified by the military in the 50's, and efforts to study this have grown every decade since. Consensus has grown, understanding has improved. The focus now is better understanding of all the mechanisms and how they interact, and how much warming there will be, and the results from that warming.

But much like pluto was never mistaken for a star or a gaseous giant, the likelyhood that new research will result in an 'Aha!' moment that it's not human caused is extremely slim. Probably less than 3%.... LOL.

As for your key point that we should work to reduce pollution anyway and redirect from making people accept the known science of global warming, that's an interesting problem and one I've thought of frequently. There is debate on this subject within the scientific community now and ">many believe that too much information too forcefully only causes humans to further reject that information.
This needs to be considered. Stakeholders positions need to be considered...and this issue being worldwide, we are all stakeholders.

Instead of me agreeing or disagreeing with you, let us consider that maybe the best approach is to focus on education by primarily offering correct information, and sparingly challenging misinformation. Finding the balance will be key. But it does not make sense to ignore the immense amount of misinformation and myth being propagated. This has to be acknowledged at some point since the misinformation pollutes the known body of evidence and public opinion. So maybe the proper course is focus on 60% correct information and 40% identifying misinformation or myth. Maybe it's 80/20. I don't know.

In the end, we cannot get away from the fact that we are asking a huge amount of the population of the world to change dramatically lest they be forced to change more drastically at a later date. Most of us will want to know why we're being asked to change, and we have the capacity to give an answer. Some people just won't listen though. 

the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
www.venganza.org/

Only theorems are not up for debate.  Everything else in the world of science is constantly up for debate.   Anyone who says the debate is over is saying that they reject any new information.  This is no longer science.

A good read is the book "Bad Science."  There's a lot to learn there about what is actually science and what is not.  A bunch of guys, even really smart guys, getting together and voting as to whether there is global warming, even if they all have indisputable facts that tend to support global warming, is not science and their conclusions must be rejected.  Even if they're right!

You don't vote on whether things have scientifically been proven.  They either have or they haven't.  Global warming looks very likely, but there's less actual proof that human activity has caused it.  So much is still within the normal range of the earth's climate variation, and so many computer models are so ridiculously inadequate.  I mean, there was global cooling that caused an ice age.  The Renaissance was aided in great measure by an immense long period of warming that sure as shit wasn't caused by automobiles!

I'm not saying it isn't true.  I'm saying it hasn't been proven.  People are saying it's been proven, but they really mean that they believe in it.  Well, to quote Stevland Morris's famous song,

You are right in that somebody saying 'there is no debate' is not science. Science is not 'debate.'  But it is a fact that there is consensus from climate scientists regarding humans causing climate change. While you may take somebody to task regarding somebody's choice of words communicating this fact, do you take issue with actual scientists having a consensual opinion? 


Yes, voting is not science. Science is science, and that is the rationale behind their voting. Except they don't just vote, they write reports and include their research on support of an opinion.

It seems you are ignoring the reasons why there is consensus but critical of the consensus itself, for no other reason that there is a consensus.

I should read Goldacre's book. Love his columns taking media to task for horrible reporting on science. Here he hammers Daily Mail for misinterpreting a climate scientist's research and not responding when the actual climate scientist tried to get them to retract their faulty information. He also touches on climate change here and here. It's pretty easy to understand where Goldacre stands on the issue.

May I suggest you read an article in Science by Naomi Oreskes where she studies 928 studies on climate change.


There's a huge amount of proof that humans are causing this round of warming. I'm curious as to what information you're basing your opinion on. I'm also curious as to how you come to the conclusion that 'computer models are ridiculously inadequate.'

But let's look at your other more solid assertions. The normal range of earth's climate has included ice two miles thick down to the equator and swamps at the northern lattitudes. It's an extremely flippant statement to make when our civilization has set up cities next to oceans and created vast regions of agricultural land that may now change with a few degrees of warming. So statements that mean 'the earth has changed before'  seem extremely lazy when you consider how much of an impact that will really make on our lives and the vast body of evidence that we are causing it and may still have some effect to change the outcome. But hey, the earth used to be a giant ball of molten rock so oh well.

The Medieval Warm Period only existed in the northern lattitudes, especially around Europe. The entire planet itself was not warmer. This time the entire planet itself is warmer. Assuming 'it was warmer before' is faulty logic.


That's projection, if not rank hypocrisy. People who say 'it's been proven' are actually standing on firmer ground when you consider the body of evidence and understand the scientific consensus. People who say 'it's been warmer before, the climate has changed before, the computer models are crap' are not standing on any firm ground, they are acting on faith.

So it's ironic that you strongly imply people who accept the scientific consensus are relying on faith when it is the people who reject the scientific consensus that are acting on faith.

It's one thing to reject information and twist yourself in logical pretzels justifying your rejection of that information.

But implying that those accepting real information are acting on faith is nothing more than petty antagonism feigned as rational thinking. It's not rational thinking at all, it's projection.

But implying that those accepting real information are acting on faith is nothing more than petty antagonism feigned as rational thinking. It's not rational thinking at all, it's projection.

BigPapa--We AGW "skeptics" do not assume you to be accepting of "real information."  We assume you to be accepting of DUBIOUS information, developed/propogated via funding and political pressures exerted by those with DUBIOUS intent. 

And why would we paranoid dolts arrive at such silly conclusions?  We simply follow the money trail...

U.S. Government Funding for Climate Change Related Activities 1989-2009

(Millions of Dollars)

.	Fiscal Year	.	Climate Science	.	Climate Technology	.	Foreign Assistance	.	Tax Breaks	.	Annual Total
	1989		134								$134
	1990		659								$659
	1991		954								$954
	1992		1,110								$1,110
	1993		1,326		845		201				$2,372
	1994		1,444		1,038		186				$2,668
	1995		1,760		1,283		228				$3,271
	1996		1,654		1,106		192				$2,952
	1997		1,656		1,056		164				$2,876
	1998		1,677		1,251		186				$3,114
	1999		1,657		1,694		325				$3,676
	2000		1,687		1,793		177				$3,657
	2001		1,728		1,675		218				$3,621
	2002		1,667		1,637		224				$3,528
	2003		1,766		2,533		270		580		$4,569
	2004		1,975		2,870		252		500		$5,097
	2005		1,865		2,808		234		369		$4,907
	2006		1,691		2,789		249		1160		$4,729
	2007		1,825		3,441		188		1730		$5,454
	2008		1,832		3,917		212	*	1420	*	$5,961
	2009		2,441	*	4,400	*	579	*	1160	*	$7,420
	TOTAL		$32,508	+	$36,136	+	$3,506	+	$6,919	=	$79,069
*Estimate or Request.………..Annual Spending totals (right hand col) do not include Tax breaks.

 

References:

1. Climate Change Science Program, Annual Report to Congress: Our Changing Planet [Link: downloads.climatescience.gov]
2. Analytical Perspectives Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2010. [Link: whitehouse.gov]
3. 1993-2005 GAO, Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should be Clearer and More Complete [Link: gao.gov] Appendix II page 34.
4. OMB, Fiscal Year 2008. Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Table 8. [Link: whitehouse.gov]
5. Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Change Programs in the FY 2009
6. Budget, p 1. AAAS. [Link: aaas.org]
   
   
   
   It's important to note that during this same period of time, Exxon-mobile funded "skeptic" science a total of 23 million dollars while also contributing approximately 4 times that amount  to "pro" AGW-related study just to stay in the good graces of rabid Cultural Marxists at Greenpeace and others.

Read more here:  [Link: joannenova.com.au]

You may also be interested in learning more about the negative impact of U. N. Agenda 21 on our personal freedoms and our national sovereignty in the video posted here:

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

Lest you write this off as more drivel from gun-totin' Yosemite-Sam types, the video presenter is a Lesbian Feminist from California who works for the government determining value of lands to be confiscated from private citizens via imminent domain.

We have an ICLEI chapter in my town...Tax payers now subsidize the salary of a "Sustainability Manager" who is developing "initiatives" to lower the town's carbon emissions to 7% BELOW 1990 levels [at which time a majority of my city was farmland and dirt roads...] all at further taxpayer expense.  Makes tons of sense, huh...Especially when our school system is 32 million underfunded this year.

Also, when you're not busy blogging, you outta do some research on Maurice Strong [a primary originator of UN A21] to see what a "nutter" truly is...

I'll also inform you that the attainment of a degree/MD/PhD in "Climate Science" does NOT automatically render a person generally intelligent, correct or trustworthy--especially in the face of billions of dollars of grant money and trillions of dollars of "Carbon Trading" wealth transfer on the line.  

In my experience, some of the dumbest people I've encountered on earth are campus-dwelling "PhD's."  Though they may eventually be proven correct, I certainly do not take them at their word that the entire global economy must be reworked at the primary expense of US Citizens to solve a problem that may or may not exist due to a cause that may or may not be known. 

You and others are absolutely free to believe Government-funded AGW Scientists, but you are NOT free to confiscate the wealth of others through government force in order to "save the planet."

I see. So you interpret government funding of climate research as driven to promote a pre-conceived opinion, not funding of research that will accept the facts as they are. This information is 'dubious,' correct?

But information put out by 'skeptical science' is not dubious. OpEds and studies of actual climate science paid for by fossil fuel interests that challenge or dismiss human caused climate change concerns are not 'dubious?' Not a little bit? 

I'm interested in your answer.

You assume that Exxon spent only $23m on 'climate science' during that same period. So you are equivocating the 'dubious' information from the government and assuming that Exxon spent that $23m on actual science: ice core drilling, tree ring data gathering, carbon isotope gathering in silt deposits, satellite data in the form of excel spread sheets, reverse history testing of climate models, research stuff. All that boring crap that climate scientists do, allegedly 'for the money.' You just said Exxon spends it on 'skeptic science.' So where is this science? It seems like that money is spent on PR firms questioning real science and paying people to misinterpret actual science.... that science that is dubious to begin with.

I'd like to know how much $ Exxon has spent on actual science.

So how about showing this actual science, peer reviewed by other scientists with credentials in their field, reviewed and accepted by the community. Or are they all in on the conspiracy too? 

It's also logically tenuous to assume Exxon's spending on non-carbon based new energy somehow washes their hands of any negative behavior. What is this logic again? They 'spent $n on climate science, but spend 4 x $n on alternative energy.' How is this supposed to be relevant? 

Again, government is not trusted, it's motives are suspect. Energy industry... given the benefit of the doubt, not held accountable, nothing wrong here.

Gotcha.

So if you follow the money trail, Exxon makes billions of dollars every quarter. That's net profit, ever quarter. Carbon mitigation jeopardizes those billions.. but the US government spends a fraction of that on climate science, allegedly to come to a pre concieved opinion.

I'd like to know if Exxon, assuming that $23m is spent on actual peer reviewed objective science, is coming to a pre-conceived opinion? 

I wonder how much of Exxon's $23m made it to Joanne Nova.

No conspiracy or ulterior motive here? 

The government is full of ulterior motives... but not climate skeptics. Right? You consider the motives and follow the money of government, but not the 'skeptics?'

They're not skeptics, they're deniers, BTW. There is a difference.

That's a great graph. Let's assume it to be true, it likely is.

After Hansen's speech in 1988, climate research ramped up, Let's call it $1.5b a year for that amount of time. Seems like a rational amount of money to spend to research a problem of the significance it was theorized to be.

After all those billions spent on research many still are 'skeptical' of it. Because it's a conspiracy to transfer wealth.

As if all those billions are not spent to find out if we have a problem, how bad it will be, and what the solution is, but to build a lie for the purpose of controlling all of us. All those billions spent on science is not actually science, but a PR conspiracy to control all us sheeple. Those tricksey scientists are all in on it. All of them, glaciologists, climatologists, paleoclimatologists, geologists... from all countries of the world. Obviously, most other countries are socialist except for the 3rd world countries and dictatorships, so any non-American scientists is more likely to be in on it.

All in on the vast conspiracy to control us and transfer our wealth. Because why? Because they're evil that's why. Because they're communist, that's why. Because they're evil. They want to control us. Take our wealth and spread it around. Because that's what they want to do. They want to do that because that's what they want to do. Because that's what they want to do. How do I know this? Because I know that's what they want to do because it's what they want to do.

They

Thankfully we have real patriots and those who value liberty watching against 'they' that want to control us and transfer our wealth to a bunch of poor brown lazy bastards who don't deserve it.

They are a nefarious force. They have the money, they have the connections. They are the busy bodies that want to control us. They are the bankers, the politicians, the bureaucrats (and now the scientists too!).... (when will scientists become the new lawyers?) They accept the support of other nefarious groups because alone they won't have the power to overtake the true patriots. That's why they support outcasts, miscreants, marginal non-upstanding citizens in our society. They need the support because they otherwise would not get enough support in their effort to control all of us.

But we are watching them. Ever vigilant.

Behold the power of They.

The religion quoted above is as legitimate as all of the others.

Thats what Bill Maher says.

Book, artwork, followers. Done.

Wow hasn't this become a popular thread, even Ernie has been sucked in.

I thought the flying spaghetti church was a joke~ Stamp are you saying it is considered a serious religion?

I once heard that Monday night football could be classified as a religion. I suppose in 3000 years when they dig up some old bar, the archaeologists of the future will surmise that football was a game played by titans who were worshiped by millions.
Each of the Titans / gods had special powers.  Temples were erected in their names wherein virgins were sacrificed in their honor after having consumed a great many intoxicating drinks. 

Here's a taste of what the imaginary "They" have to say about our world, within the context of AGW, Socialism and Wealth Transfer:

H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

And a few others for you to digest, true "nutters" all:

Quote by Lester Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute, and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute: "Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance."

Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance"

Quote by UN's Commission on Global Governance: "The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."

Quote by David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports: "Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task."

Quote by John Holdren, President Obama's science czar: “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States...De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation...Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being."

Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."

Quote by EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem: "[Kyoto protocol] is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake, and that is why it is serious,..."

Quote by Louis Proyect, Columbia University: “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”

Quote by Jeffery Sachs, Columbia University, Director of The Earth Institute: "Obama is already setting a new historic course by reorienting the economy from private consumption to public investments...free-market pundits bemoan the evident intention of Obama and team to 'tell us what kind of car to drive'. Yet that is exactly what they intend to do...and rightly so. Free-market ideology is an anachronism in an era of climate change."

Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:  "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

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 Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Quote by Sir John Houghton, pompous lead editor of first three IPCC reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.” 

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?” 

Quote by Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."

Quote by Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: "We reject the idea of private property."

Quote by Jack Trevors, Editor-in-Chief of Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: "The capitalistic systems of economy follow the one principal rule: the rule of profit making. All else must bow down to this rule…The current USA is an example of a failed capitalistic state in which essential long-term goals such as prevention of climate change and limitation of human population growth are subjugated to the short-term profit motive and the principle of economic growth."

Quote by Judi Bari, an American environmentalist and labor leader, a feminist, and the principal organizer of Earth First!: "I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically,"

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."

Quote by UN chief Ban Ki-moon: "Now it is the least developed world who are not responsible for this climate change phenomenon that bore the brunt of climate change consequences so it is morally and politically correct that the developed world who made this climate change be responsible by providing financial support and technological support to these people."

Quote by David Rockefeller, heir to billion dollar fortune: "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..."

Quote by Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician and a leading member of the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process...Capitalism is destroying the earth." 

Quote by Judi Dench, famous UK actress: "The need for a global structure of control in the form of a world environment court is now more urgent than ever before."

Quote by Club of Rome: "A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income."

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government." 

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

Quote by Club of Rome:  "Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer: “Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment.”

Quote by Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General: "A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed."

Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General: “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government.  There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.  We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”

Quote by Jacques Chirac, former French President: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument [Kyoto Protocol] of global governance,”..."By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace.”

Quote by Earth Charter, an environmental organization: "Radical change from the current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity. Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation are required and they are required now."

Quote by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, architect of the new Germanic masterplan, the 'Great Transformation': "Either the Earth System would undergo major phase transitions as a result of unchecked human pressure on nature’s capacities and resources or a “Great Transformation” towards global sustainability would be initiated in due course. Neither transitions nor transformations will be manageable without novel forms of global governance and markets..."

Quote by UN's Commission on Global Governance: "Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself."

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president: "We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth."

Quote by Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam in Britain: "Funding from rich countries to help the poor and vulnerable adapt to climate change is not even one percent of what is needed. This glaring injustice must be addressed at Copenhagen in December [2009]."

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Quote by Walden Bello, leftist and founding director of Focus on the Global South: "However it is achieved, a thorough reorganisation of production, consumption and distribution will be the end result of humanity's response to the climate emergency and the broader environmental crisis."

Quote by UK's Keith Farnish, environmental writer, philosopher and activist: "The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization...Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine."

Quote by James Lovelock, known as founder of 'Gaia' concept: “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

Quote by Club of Rome: "Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."

Quote by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury: “We must support government coercion over enforcing international protocols and speed limits on motorways if we want the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions of people to die.”

Quote by Paula Snyder, an America promoter of green causes: "Greed is the enemy - the underlying problem is greed, and that leads into most of the problems with the ecological system and the political system...I wish I could make a total redistribution [of wealth]...Things are going to change. They have to."

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 Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the ten commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community."

Quote by Club of Rome: "The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope."

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

Quote by Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation: “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: "We contend that the position of the nuclear promoters is preposterous beyond the wildest imaginings of most nuclear opponents, primarily because one of the purported “benefits” of nuclear power, the availability of cheap and abundant energy, is in fact a liability."

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

Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal: "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: "A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer."

Quote by John Holdren, President Obama's science czar: "There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated...It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." 

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.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

Quote by Club of Rome: "...the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion."

Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: "For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we’re doomed."

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: "The addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply. With limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery".

Quote by Bill Gates, Microsoft billionaire, and large CO2 producer: "The world today has 6.8 billion people...that's headed up to about 9 billion. If we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15 percent."

Quote by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, architect of the new Germanic masterplan, the 'Great Transformation': "When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode.”

Quote by Jacques Cousteau, mega-celebrity French scientist: "In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day."

Quote by UN Commission on Global Biodiversity Assessment: "A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."

Quote by John Miller, a NOAA climate scientist: "I would be remiss, as a scientist who studied this, if I didn't mention the following two things: The first is that, most importantly, we need to do, as a society, in this country and globally, whatever we can to reduce population"....."Our whole economic system is based on growth, and growth of our population, and this economic madness has to end."

Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal: "I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."

Quote by Prince Philip, royal billionaire, married to Queen Elizabeth II, and large CO2 producer: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

Quote by Ingrid Newkirk, a former PETA President: “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth - social and environmental.”

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: "There are too many people, that's why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff."

Quote by James Lovelock, known as founder of 'Gaia' concept: "The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil."

Quote by Nina Vsevolod Fedoroff, science advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “There are probably already too many people on the planet.”

Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer: "Third world nations are producing too many children too fast...it is time to ignore the controversy over family planning and cut out-of-control population growth..."

Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: "Finally, we might decide that civilisation itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population – weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians, for example."

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: "We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight."

Quote by Harry Reid, Democrat, U.S. Senate majority leader: "Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It's global warming. It's ruining our country. It's ruining our world."

Quote by Osama bin Laden, terrorist leader behind 9/11 plot & attacks: "In fact, the life of all mankind is in danger because of global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations; yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistics speak of the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of global warming, especially in Africa."

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote by Amory Lovins, scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute: "Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it."

Quote by David Graber, scientist U.S. Nat'l Park Services: "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Quote by Eric Pianka, professor at University of Texas: Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people. 

Quote by John Shuttleworth, founder of Mother Earth News magazine: "The only real good technology is no technology at all.  Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.”

Quote by Thomas Lovejoy, scientist, Smithsonian Institution: "The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles."

Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: "Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable."

Quote by Pentti Linkola, a Finnish ecological philosopher: “An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth.....discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression are the only solution." "As for those “most responsible for the present economic growth and competition”, Linkola explains that they will be sent to the mountains for “re-education” in eco-gulags: “the sole glimmer of hope,” he declares, “lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens.”

Quote by Bill Maher, supposedly a comedian, and large CO2 producer: “Failing to warn the citizens of a looming weapon of mass destruction- and that’s what global warming is- in order to protect oil company profits, well, that fits for me the definition of treason.”

Quote by James Hansen, prominent NASA climate scientist: "...chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to [should] be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature; [Hansen] accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Quote by George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist: "...every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."

Quote by Jill Singer, Australian green and "journalist": "I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide."

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

Quote by David Roberts, journalist Grist Magazine: "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards (global warming skeptics) -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environemental journalist and Greenpeace member: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter." 

Quote by George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist: "It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves."

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: ‘Global warming’ will kill most of us, and turn the rest of us into cannibals.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Quote by Maurice King, well known UK professor: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

Quote by Jerry Brown, California liberal Democrat politician: "It's not viable' for poverty stricken developing world to emulate prosperity of U.S."

Quote by Lord Stern elitist UK economist and promoter of UN climate/economic sanctions:  “The US will increasingly see the risks of being left behind, and ten years from now they would have to start worrying about being shut out of markets because their production is dirty.”

Quote by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and large CO2 producer: "Large-scale hog producers are a greater threat to the United States and U.S. democracy than Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network."

Quote by Christian Anton Mayer, aka Carl Amery, German environmentalist and writer: "We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: "I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded the Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth seem reasonable."

Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos." (Editor: Yes, he meant the year 2000.)