Tuesday, November 02, 2010

The Denmark Vesey 2009 "My Favorite White Boy" Award Goes To... Lord Christopher Monckton

Everything else is talk.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

"And there is a better way to control population than to withdraw the one effective agent against one of the worlds biggest killers and that is to raise the standard of living of the poorest. That has long been a moral imperative since the time of Our Blessed Lord himself it has been a moral imperative that we help Our Lord’s the sick and Our Lord’s the poor. And we work for them and we raise them up and we make them healthy and we make them wealthy, because if we make them wealthy, then their populations will stabilize. This is something that every demographer knows perfectly well . Make the population wealthy and it stabilizes. Keep it poor and it will continue to increase. Make it poor if it was wealthy, and it will start to increase again. And if the environmental left were really serious about saving the planet from a huge CO2 footprint (which I will show doesn’t matter at all) then the first thing they would do is pursue policies that would not, as the extinction of five sixths of your economy would do, make you poor. They would be trying to make everybody rich."

Wow

CNu said...

Beelzebub,

You felt compelled to take down this ninny's mugshot two weeks ago after having sourced it from the least flattering possible article available and getting called out for it - at that time.

Why you back to repping this fool now?

Stop insulting the intelligence of your constituents by constantly scraping the bottom of the barrel promoting a "diversity of idiocy" rather than the diversity of ideology you claim to represent.

dx said...

the peasants of this world cant stop the inevitable.....

Denmark Vesey said...

As if on cue^^

The Federation beams Lieutenant Commander Geordi La Forge played by Levar Burton Malthus onto the bridge of The Starship Enterprise to Attack-The-Messenger & Ignore-The-Message.

(Notice Levar offers not one point of contention with any particular point contained in the the message ... just slavish obedience to the orthodoxy of Plantation Science, shrouded in the forced sarcasm popular among geeks.)

Unflattering article? Removed picture because of what?

LOL. Ya trippin' nerd.

You've been playing too much Dungeons & Dragons Levar. You can't seem to discern your little Malthusian fantasies from reality.

You got a more relevant meme regarding the Climate Change / World Government hoax? Drop a link:

CNu said...

Gave it to you two weeks ago Scratch.

That'd be the article about master Pentagon planner Andrew Marshall detailing warsocialism's plans and preparations (THE Meme) for climate change.

Find it, read it, and learn...,

Constructive Feedback said...

DV:

The Copenhagen conference exposed their hand all too clearly.

Be prepared for the "Black Nationalists" to go on the attack and call people like you "Sellouts".

They will accuse you of sucking up to Uncle Sam rather than accepting these "reparations" in what ever form they come in.

Why do you stand against the brown skinned people around the world DV?

CNu said...

An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security

October 2003 - By Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall

Imagining the Unthinkable

The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered
immediately.

CNu said...

Tom Paine provides the metanalysis...,

While the content of this release raises the alarm, Marshall is sending multiple messages. The timing of the Fortune article, for instance. For a man of Marshall's long legacy of discretion to directly challenge the current administration's line on global warming at the beginning of a presidential election year speaks volumes. That he chose to do so by releasing a report by respected business consultants in Fortune magazine seems to say he wants the business world, Bush's most important constituency, to understand clearly that the status quo is untenable.

This extraordinary act by a senior Defense Department official implies high-level recognition that the Bush administration's resistance to the near global consensus on climate change"a consensus that includes the vast majority of the scientific community, many corporations including General Motors, Alcoa, IBM, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, and all the remaining governments of the OECD"is a threat to national security itself. Indeed, last month in the journal Science, the United Kingdom's Chief Scientific Advisor declared that "climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today"more serious even than the threat of terrorism." Perhaps inoculating itself from future criticism the report states, "Many scientists would regard this scenario as extreme. . . But history tells us that sometimes the extreme cases do occur, there is evidence that it might be [occurring] and it is DOD's job to consider such scenarios."

And that resistance has been staunch. In the battle over climate change, according to a report from the group Environment2004, the Bush administration has both misrepresented the science and misled the public. According to The New York Times, the Bush administration acted to distort and omit EPA findings on global warming. The group notes that the administration has dismissed the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change set up by the first President Bush and the findings of a panel of the National Academy of Sciences that Bush himself requested. They document how administration has tried to mislead the public by substituting the absolute indicator of total emissions with emissions per unit of GDP, which can go down while total U.S. emissions continue to rise"and then asking emitters (unsuccessfully) to voluntarily commit to reducing emission intensity. And they highlight how the administration has stalled the debate by calling for a research agenda which The New York Times described as a "redundant examination of issues that had largely been settled, bereft of vision, executable goals and timetables"in short, little more than a cover-up for inaction."

Denmark Vesey said...

^^ ...

...

...

...

... and?

Denmark Vesey said...

"resistance to the near global consensus on climate change"a consensus that includes the vast majority of the scientific community, many corporations including General Motors, Alcoa, IBM, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, and all the remaining governments of the OECD"is a threat to national security itself."


near? global? consensus?

When the fuck did that become science?

That's what I'm talking about.

Even the A Students conformists. Just verbose conformists.

CNu said...

lol..,

Scratch so stuck on stupid conspiracy theories, he's become too dense to see what's sitting there in plain sight.

What does it tell you when the Pentagon's father of strategic planning asserts something in direct contradiction to the sitting administration's policy and practice?

Denmark Vesey said...

"What does it tell you when the Pentagon's father of strategic planning asserts something in direct contradiction to the sitting administration's policy and practice?"

... both sides of the fence.



stahooopidmuhfuggahs

Denmark Vesey said...

"What does it tell you when the Pentagon's father of strategic planning asserts something in direct contradiction to the sitting administration's policy and practice?"

... a nonevent.

Denmark Vesey said...

"What does it tell you when the Pentagon's father of strategic planning asserts something in direct contradiction to the sitting administration's policy and practice?"

... Randian Malthusists playing email footsy.

CNu said...

Randian?!?!

rotflmbao...,

jigaboo,

stop playing.

now concentrate.

Rub those two feebly functioning brain cells of yours together,

squeeze as hard as you can,

and try to answer the kwestin in the context of U.S. history within your own lifetime and U.S. history as it's unfolding directly in front of all our eyes.

makheru bradley said...

It would be interesting to see what this polemicist has to say now that the conference in Copenhagen has ended with a non-binding accord—nothing that even approaches Kyoto/1997.

To even mention Barack Obama and communism is oxymoronic.

Most of the organizations on the left are extremely disappointed with the Copenhagen Accord.

If the Nobel War Criminal was truly interested in the global environment he should start by ending these senseless wars and reducing his war machine in general. What are the odds that will happen?

[The US Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world, producing more hazardous wastes than the five largest US chemical companies together. Hazardous wastes employed by the military include, among others, pesticides and defoliants, like Agent Orange, many solvents, petroleum, perchlorate, lead mercury and depleted uranium.

Health problems associated with these toxins include miscarriages, low birth weight, birth defects, kidney disease and cancer. Most affected are those on whom such weapons are used, those in the military, and those who live near a military site. In the US one out of every ten persons lives within ten miles of a military site listed as a priority cleanup site.

Many corporations are right up there with the DoD. So, then, why are their fellow conspirators the ones wording such legislation? The best argument in favor of the environment, I conclude, is also an argument against war. Therefore any true and honest environmental movement has, at its core, an argument against war!

Depleted Uranium (DU) has been a hot topic since the war began, similar to Agent Orange use in Vietnam. As a radioactive and chemically toxic heavy metal, it remains wherever it is lodged, in the body on the ground or in rivers, for decades. In the human body particles of depleted uranium are a source of alpha particles. Much research suggests that DU is linked to serious damage to the human body.

In Iraq alone hundreds of tons of Depleted Uranium have been fired and exploded in high populated areas such as Basrah, Baghdad, Nasriya, Dewania, Samawa, and other cities. Exploration programs have found Depleted Uranium related contamination over most Iraqi territories.

Iraq’s Minister of Environment said in July of 2007 in Cairo that “at least 350 sites in Iraq are contaminated with Depleted Uranium.” She also said that Iraq is facing an unprecedented number of cancer cases and called on the international community to help Iraq alleviate this problem.] -- Justin O'Connell