Posts
According to Lord Monckton, the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, may result in the adoption of a treaty that brings in World Government under the guise of doing something about climate change. The 'climate-gate' scandal has exposed the corrupt science behind the climate change movement, headed by Al Gore, among others. In addition to World Government, population reduction is directly linked to a reduction in CO2 emmissions. Increased CO2 promotes increased plant growth and will help to feed the world's hungry people. Cutting it back to pre-industrial levels will reduce food production by 12% causing the deaths by starvation of hundreds of millions of people who today exist on the margins.
Enjoy. Learn. Share.
Population Reduction Question Brought Up at Copenhagen
Anti-Climate-Change Lobby Conference
COPENHAGEN, Dec. 8 (EIRNS)--Today, the second alternative
conference against the climate change lobby was held, entitled
"The Copenhagen Climate Challenge Conference," with senior
scientists and other speakers, sponsored by Climate-Sense, CFACT,
and NIPCC (http://www.climate-sense.com/). It was initiated by persons
from Denmark and Great Britain, with Lord Monckton on the board
of advisors. Today's speakers are listed below.
A LaRouche representative asked the following question after
a speech by H. Leighton Steward, a Texan geologist,
"environmentalist," and energy executive, who is promoting the
increase of CO2 to produce increased plant growth. His speech
documented the increase of grain productivity, and other plant
growth, as a result of increased CO2, and noted that plants also
need less water (his website is: http://www.plantsneedco2.org/). During
his speech, he brought up the fact that reducing CO2 would reduce
plant growth, and therefore cause population reduction.
"My name is Michelle Rasmussen from the Schiller Institute
and {Executive Intelligence Review}, and I wanted to raise this
population-reduction question with you. You said that the effect
of the policies to reduce CO2 -- that can lead to a reduced
population, [Yes, he replied] and I wanted to bring that up,
because we are circulating this statement, by the friends of
Lyndon LaRouche, the U.S. economist, that maybe the reason why
the environmentalist movement is pushing for this reduction in
the human activities, is purposely to have an ideology that would
go along with a reduction in population. [He starts to answer]
Just one more thing. Let's remember that Prince Philip, the
founder of the World Wildlife Fund, said that the Earth is better
if there were only 2 billion people. What do you have to say to
this?"
"Well, I say that a lot of people do feel that way, because
I've read, and I've heard some people say that. Exactly that. But
relative to the real fact, not getting into that philosophical
area, since the start of the industrial revolution in 1860, the
plant growth on Earth has increased 12%, our food crops, etc. Our
forests have grown, our trees, as you can see, have grown at a
higher rate, our forests have improved, or gotten more robust by
18%. So most of the environmental groups, unless they can figure
out what you're up to, when you say, 'where do you think the
atmospheric CO2 should be? Should it be where we are today, at
385 parts per million, or should it be 350, as Dr. Pachari, the
head of the IPCC, says?' Most of them, given the choice, will go
back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, and say, well
it was 280 there, and that's where it ought to be, before man
started tampering with all this CO2. So all we have to do is go
back logically and say, our food growth, on the chart, would
decrease by 12%.
"There are already a billion people on Earth who are
severely undernourished. Associated Press said two weeks ago that
a child is dying from malnutrition every six seconds. That's
their statistics, not mine, that's Associated Press in all the
major newspapers. So you can just logically go back and say, if
we reduced the food supply on Earth by 12%, a lot of those people
are going to die, because they're almost dead now. And a lot of
them will die because of malnutrition, lack of nutrition."
Other speakers on the first day of the two-day conference
were: Prof. Nils-Axel Moerner, on world sea levels; Prof. Cliff
Ollier, on glaciers; Stuart Wheeler; Prof. Ian Plimer, on the
ever changing Earth climate; Prof. Henrik Svensmark, on the solar
activity-cloud research.
Anti-Climate-Change Lobby Conference
COPENHAGEN, Dec. 8 (EIRNS)--Today, the second alternative
conference against the climate change lobby was held, entitled
"The Copenhagen Climate Challenge Conference," with senior
scientists and other speakers, sponsored by Climate-Sense, CFACT,
and NIPCC (http://www.climate-sense.com/). It was initiated by persons
from Denmark and Great Britain, with Lord Monckton on the board
of advisors. Today's speakers are listed below.
A LaRouche representative asked the following question after
a speech by H. Leighton Steward, a Texan geologist,
"environmentalist," and energy executive, who is promoting the
increase of CO2 to produce increased plant growth. His speech
documented the increase of grain productivity, and other plant
growth, as a result of increased CO2, and noted that plants also
need less water (his website is: http://www.plantsneedco2.org/). During
his speech, he brought up the fact that reducing CO2 would reduce
plant growth, and therefore cause population reduction.
"My name is Michelle Rasmussen from the Schiller Institute
and {Executive Intelligence Review}, and I wanted to raise this
population-reduction question with you. You said that the effect
of the policies to reduce CO2 -- that can lead to a reduced
population, [Yes, he replied] and I wanted to bring that up,
because we are circulating this statement, by the friends of
Lyndon LaRouche, the U.S. economist, that maybe the reason why
the environmentalist movement is pushing for this reduction in
the human activities, is purposely to have an ideology that would
go along with a reduction in population. [He starts to answer]
Just one more thing. Let's remember that Prince Philip, the
founder of the World Wildlife Fund, said that the Earth is better
if there were only 2 billion people. What do you have to say to
this?"
"Well, I say that a lot of people do feel that way, because
I've read, and I've heard some people say that. Exactly that. But
relative to the real fact, not getting into that philosophical
area, since the start of the industrial revolution in 1860, the
plant growth on Earth has increased 12%, our food crops, etc. Our
forests have grown, our trees, as you can see, have grown at a
higher rate, our forests have improved, or gotten more robust by
18%. So most of the environmental groups, unless they can figure
out what you're up to, when you say, 'where do you think the
atmospheric CO2 should be? Should it be where we are today, at
385 parts per million, or should it be 350, as Dr. Pachari, the
head of the IPCC, says?' Most of them, given the choice, will go
back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, and say, well
it was 280 there, and that's where it ought to be, before man
started tampering with all this CO2. So all we have to do is go
back logically and say, our food growth, on the chart, would
decrease by 12%.
"There are already a billion people on Earth who are
severely undernourished. Associated Press said two weeks ago that
a child is dying from malnutrition every six seconds. That's
their statistics, not mine, that's Associated Press in all the
major newspapers. So you can just logically go back and say, if
we reduced the food supply on Earth by 12%, a lot of those people
are going to die, because they're almost dead now. And a lot of
them will die because of malnutrition, lack of nutrition."
Other speakers on the first day of the two-day conference
were: Prof. Nils-Axel Moerner, on world sea levels; Prof. Cliff
Ollier, on glaciers; Stuart Wheeler; Prof. Ian Plimer, on the
ever changing Earth climate; Prof. Henrik Svensmark, on the solar
activity-cloud research.
1 comment:
This is a very empowering piece.
Post a Comment