Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.

[Lemur]

so let me see if i am right, i need to go to a webpage,that appears to be not run anymore [as the creator id dead] that is constaley confirmed to have a quote from a person ,show in multiple media reporting, to convince you?

Since you can't be bothered with Wayback Machine to substantiate your own quote, how about you just Google it? Turns out this line: "how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution," is a direct reference to a 1997 novel titled My Ishmael. It was referenced by crazed gunman James J. Lee. Here's his manifesto (PDF warning).

So ... how, exactly, does a crazed gunman's misinterpretation of a 1997 novel have any bearing on anything? And why couldn't you be bothered to check and link easily available sources?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[total relism]

Since you can't be bothered with Wayback Machine to substantiate your own quote, how about you just Google it? Turns out this line: "how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution," is a direct reference to a 1997 novel titled My Ishmael. It was referenced by crazed gunman James J. Lee. Here's his manifesto (PDF warning).

So ... how, exactly, does a crazed gunman's misinterpretation of a 1997 novel have any bearing on anything? And why couldn't you be bothered to check and link easily available sources?

Inquiring minds want to know.

great post thank for original, know will you admit its not a false quote?please tell hore tore you can ask hows it relevant, but can no longer say its false as you claimed. I am glad you posted and the author made his position known, not surprising he distanced himself from the crazy. How is it relevant? because it was to him James Lee as he understood it. how he used it what he taught of people was point of my whole section of op, not weather someone else holds same view he did.

Oxygen is indeed a poison. It's also a pollutant. So is co2. The problem with your sentences in the P is not that they are inherently wrong, it's that they simply don't make sense.

The dosage is the poison, and the same goes for pollutants. Although it's more common to say "placement" instead of "dosage". But that's just to give a clarification to the most common scenarios, in all cases it's a matter of dosage. Some co2 in the air is not a pollutant, more co2 in the air is a pollutant.

While your statement on the quote is almost unreadable, if I got the gist of it I'd say it's accurate. When you quote, you absolutely need to give the reader the information needed to verify it. A dead host isn't an excuse, sorry. If you don't you might as well leave it out, it adds nothing to a discussion.

EDIT: now this is an example of how you source. Was that really so hard? Now the quote is good instead of being false as it is in the OP.

notice what i boleded in your post.

[B]first[/B]second
in the amount, i will clarify in op that the lie is no matter how much any release of c02 is pollutant. Thank you, i thought it was more ovius.

third
still good original source in op as when it was first posted when website was running. But i shall post both i guess.


edit
just edited op

know includes any relased
any co2 released is a pollutant, .

carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is like calling clouds pollutants, they are naturally forming and essential to life.
an appeal to reason a cool look at global warming Nigel Lawson.
http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Reason-.../dp/B008SLKRA6


know includes second refence
"how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution...."
SaveThePlanetProtest.com
http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/jame...covery_gunman/

[HoreTore]

No one has ever claimed that co2 is not a fundamental component in the world. That's absurd. You're arguing a strawman.

....And you still don't get how the quote as it stands in your OP is false? I'm lost for words.

EDIT: I see you've changed your OP. Good, your quote is now useable.

[total relism]

No one has ever claimed that co2 is not a fundamental component in the world. That's absurd. You're arguing a strawman.

....And you still don't get how the quote as it stands in your OP is false? I'm lost for words.

because as i showed many times int not false, its original.

pollutant
you in fact are arguing straw man and very desperate to find anything indeed, i said c02 is not a pollutant only.

, in many schools it is called poultant, my kids homework. This book gives many examples.

AN Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming
http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Reason-.../dp/B008SLKRA6

watch the dvd and documentaries on op many are free, many interview kids see how they see c02, its a pollutant.

why if you goggle do so many articles come up defending that c02 is not a pollutant if that is never claimed?just google it.


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/07/epa-formally-declares-co2-a-dangerous-pollutant/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/12/1037/
http://www.expresswaysonline.com/expwys/ourselves.html
Why is carbon dioxide considered as a pollutant?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/<b>Why_is_..._pollutant</b>


etc etc

[HoreTore]

Yes, co2 is a pollutant.

How on earth you come to the conclusion that co2 being a pollutant is in opposition to co2 being a fundamental natural resource is quite frankly beyond me. It's both, and which term you use depends on the context.

Just like it is with every other pollutant out there. Again, I point to the possibility that you do not understand what a pollutant is as the most reasonable explanation.

EDIT: Barring the possibility of some whacko religious schools in hillbillystan, photosynthesis is taught to all school children. Calling co2 a pollutant while teaching photosynthesis is absurd. Photosynthesis is also one of the first chemical reactions a pupil is exposed to, way before co2 is discussed as a pollutant.

[total relism]

thought these were relevant


As Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, noted, those who toe the party line are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them, but scientists:
‘who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
Lindzen, R., Climate of Fear,#OpinionJournal, 12 April 2006

indzen has also noted the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. The editors of leading journals#Science#and#Nature, commonly refused such papers (without review) as being without interest. However, Lindzen adds that
‘ … even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I [Lindzen], with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an “Iris Effect,” wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2#. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as “discredited.”’


No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVXuIYND
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...en-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html


Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.
But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.
Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVY5Uqar
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVYYwUqs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, which opposes the conventional view, says, “In the peer-reviewed literature we're finding hundreds of factors influence global temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth's axis to water vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust, all of these factors are coming together. They're now realizing it wasn't the simple story we've been told of your SUV is creating a dangerously warm planet.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-note-04132013


Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’


I said the end wasn't nigh... and it cost me my BBC career says TV's first environmentalist, David Bellamy

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVYkbCnG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVYYwUqs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


But the scientists behind the theory have a vested interest – it’s a great way to justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves more work.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVZZVtO9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Kadagar_AV]

[Papewaio]

So this doesn't end in tears lets just peel back one layer of the onion at a time.

2) Relocate people from rural to urban areas.

People choose to migrate to cities. More then 50% of the worlds population lives in cities. Most governments provide more services to city populations as the money goes further per capita.

China is 51% urbanised and climbing. That climb is contributing to its thirst for rebar for apartments, which in turn is helping Australia's economy as we export so much iron ore. The richest woman in the world is rich because the world is urbanising and we are doing it faster then ever.

There is no first world country trying to surpress urbanisation or rural populations. Most are trying to figure out how to make jobs outside cities and increase satellite city popularity.