I’ll leave this one in the hands of Australian Climate Madness who gets credit for spotting this unbelievable quote from a supposed journalistic enterprise of integrity known as “The Age”. – Anthony
Astonishing quote from “The Age”
The Age reports on another “yoof” climate campaign wittily entitled “Youth Decide” (“you decide,” geddit? Link here.) in which the kids of today vote on which world they wish to inherit. Here are the three options:
Even The Age pokes fun at the poll, wondering why we should pay attention to the opinion of 12 year olds (brainwashed at school by endless showings of An Inconvenient Truth in science class, rather than in politics class). But it also includes an almost unbelievable quote, revealing a great deal about The Age‘s view on the campaign to save the planet from climate change:
There is not, now, much value in arguing about the science of climate change. Even if it’s wrong, enough people now believe it that it may as well be right.
In other words, give up trying to argue that the science is wrong. We’ve successfully pulled the wool over the public’s eyes now, mostly thanks to the misrepresentations in the media, and primarily thanks to the alarmist Fairfax (which includes The Age itself and The Sydney Morning Herald), and so who cares if it complete BS? We will achieve our political goals whatever happens now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release09Sep09.htm
There are some interesting numbers related to carbon mitigation costs deep down in the press release.
There is also an unfortunate logic to the argument they put forward. Despite the potential for the proposed solution that could well extend a long way beyond carbon nonsense and into improved situations for the poorer parts of the world (and therefore the world in general) that chances of being able to control the social aspects are less than non-existent.
The concept of controlling the growth of the world population or even reducing the net population seems to fit poorly with many other human objectives.
So living longer would be a negative factor on the success of their proposals.
In the developed countries this would mean that health care should be reduced in order to encourage earlier exits. AIDS treatments are obviously very much a lost opportunity for population reduction.
In less developed countries one might assume that Aids and indigenous illness treatmeant would be withdrawn. Malaria could be encouraged as a ‘natural’ popuklation reduction tool. (Indeed one wonders if that has been the case for the last 40 years or so anyway.)
By planning to increase energy prices ‘massively’, as all seem now to be predicting in order to get the idea accepted as a fait accompli, we could anticipate that people living in cold climates will have to forego heating and hot food. That should help the headcount reduction targets.
Likelwise in the hotter areas the heat can be allowed to take effect.
Presumably the pressures of migration this will create as people attempt to move to more temperate regions will lead to a few violent clashes and perhaps full blown wars, all good for reducing headcount.
If the rate of reduction is too slow one can always open a few research labs and lat various killer diseases loose. That said the treatment for ‘swine’ flu seems to be worse than the illness in terms of fatalities so maybe they are already carrying out live beta tests for the second stage strategy.
There is more, but I think people here will get the drift. It all adds another slant to that overused phrase ‘Think of the children.’