A few more for you.

"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." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"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." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"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." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"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." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

Hasbeen,
Who decides which person lives and which person dies? This is as radical as Hitler. This deserves a war against those proposing such human annihilation.

Philo except that from the limited scan I did not all the quotes appear to be legitimate.

All the ones I checked are widely quoted, a couple were claimed to be outright fabrications that were just on quoted. Others were badly out of context (the one from Stephen Schneider was about the media not his approach). Paul Watson was reportedly kicked out of Greenpeace for being too extreme.

I didn't go through them all, a couple appeared to be legitimate but most of what I checked were either clearly false or doubtful.

R0bert

Hasbeen,

Care to back up your allegation of scientists getting hand-outs and grants on the basis of providing evidence for climate change with some examples?

From what I can see, the science of Climatology has been around for decades and much of the remaining data has come from other existing and established scientific areas. Except for the IPCC (which was set up many years ago) it seems to be pretty much business-as-usual in the scientific world as far as I can see.

However I can show that industries that will be most affected are pumping lots of their money into the argument against it.

For example, Gina Reinhart is (once again) bankrolling another visit by "Lord" Monkton and has used her influence to get Andrew Bolt and others to parrot her concerns through the media. She even got Bolt his own TV show.

Koch Industries in the US kicked in around $25 million (2005-2008) and $48milltion (1997-2008) to set up bogus "think tanks" whose role is to provide false and misleading information and junk science results to media groups.

Many of the (unsupported) views in these forums have originated from those groups.

Hasbeen,

Thank you for the quotes. Viewed from a positive perspective I detect wisdom in some of these. I'm not sure how you meant them to be taken, however, I wish to make some comments, to identify why I think the following are worthy of serious consideration.

"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." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

If we extend the scenario depicted to application to all 10 Billion of humanity, surely the statement is accurate - given the carbon footprint resulting, and the finite capacity of resources and the natural world to withstand such a level of abuse.

"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." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

The first point may be illogical, but the second point is a caution regarding potential facilitation of exponential growth in population and consumption, with obvious threats to food security and super-extension of finite non-renewable resources.

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Fukishima and Angela Merkel offer some confirmation, and my immediate above comment would also apply.

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

See my previous response on a similarly directed quote.

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

There are very many commentators who would agree.

My own submission is that greater focus should be directed to water security, for I see this as a far greater challenge here in Oz, irrespective of any possible (real or imagined) impacts of GW. Govt attention is currently ill-focused.

Hi Has been that’s a nice bunch of what was called “motherhood” statements when I was working for Vic DSE (an 18 month ring side seat into watching taxes being pee’d up against the wall and if the DSE could have coordinated the peeing better, they might have avoided “state controlled burns” turning into the worst bush fires for many years).

Anyway.. I agree with Philo

We have the “market” and "natural selection" to regulate consumption…. We do not need some public appointed oligarch to declare how much meat we are allowed to eat and how far we are allowed to drive our Mercedes.

Nor do we need some NGO (which is an “N” short of a “nong”) administrator making fast and loose with national economic policy

For every quote you have there I can think of several to counter them or offer alternate quote which show why your list is flawed

and I will start Lenin

“Liberty is so precious, it must be rationed”

Which counters most of yours one way or another

Now dearest Margaret

"The larger the slice taken by government, the smaller the cake available for everyone."

Which tells you what we think of “Carbon Tax”

And another from Margaret

"To be free is better than to be unfree - always. Any politician who suggests the opposite should be treated as suspect."

Most of those quote of yours require regulation and limitation of one sort or another to be imposed of otherwise free people – again something to be rejected

Just as the majority of the voting population reject a carbon tax




And as I have some free space I will address another issue from elsewhere

Bonmot “Rather than accepting the apology and moving on, you prefer to chastise with further admonition.”

You added comment to your unrequited apology… and I responded to your comment, as I am free to do

If you do not like the response you should have not added the comment in the first place…. Now I suggest you leave it alone

like I said, I find these sorts of exchanges boring.