Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
lord_casek

Obama's Climate Czar is Fucking Insane

Recommended Posts

Oh yeah, and thanks for all the nega-props. I'm pretty sure you're the only person who's given me nega-props, other people have propped me for calling you out but for some reason their props aren't as powerful as yours. I don't really care. Funny to see how you react to people who don't agree with you though. But for everyone else - I think it's pretty clear who the biggest nutjob in this thread is...

 

 

You're very welcome. I'm not interested in others propping habits.

Thanks for trying to justify yourself, though.

 

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that the nutjob is an apologist for psychopathic writings

of Obamanoid cabinet members.

 

 

P.s.: I'm glad my negative props get to you. That is the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

I don't think the planet is overpopulated (yet) but I think there's a lack of balance as far as distribution of population and resources. There's nothing crazy about acknowledging that.

 

As far as this guy going on the record with some of his more off the wall ideas, well...what's that saying by Justice Brandeis? "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." He may not be saying "We have to do this NOW" but people are going to remember what he says and keep an eye on him. Hopefully.

 

Casek, who do you think would have been a more logical choice for Science Adviser? Is there room for more than one opinion at the top?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calling you a Eugenicist isn't like calling you an asshole.

 

Not how you said it. And you're clearly angry, what with all the negaprops.

 

 

Even case by case, this is still pretty sick. If world government, mass sterilization, poisonings, etc. don't throw up red flags all over the place, you may need to brush up on being human.

 

Did you even read that excerpt you posted? He isn't saying we need all this shit to happen, this is more like sci-fi futuristic speculation. I can see where he's coming from, from a scientific point of view. Do you have anything that shows him PUSHING these views, calling religiously for the realization of some Brave New World dystopia? Whispering fervent exhortations into Obama's ear regarding the creation of a global SS? Show me that and maybe I'll jump on your bandwagon. He sounds eccentric, but I see no real evidence here that he isn't a solid scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Casek, who do you think would have been a more logical choice for Science Adviser? Is there room for more than one opinion at the top?

 

 

Someone with a balanced and *sane* view of our planet and the human race. I

don't have anyone in particular in mind at the moment,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not how you said it. And you're clearly angry, what with all the negaprops.

 

 

 

 

Did you even read that excerpt you posted? He isn't saying we need all this shit to happen, this is more like sci-fi futuristic speculation. I can see where he's coming from, from a scientific point of view. Do you have anything that shows him PUSHING these views, calling religiously for the realization of some Brave New World dystopia? Whispering fervent exhortations into Obama's ear regarding the creation of a global SS? Show me that and maybe I'll jump on your bandwagon. He sounds eccentric, but I see no real evidence here that he isn't a solid scientist.

 

 

Yes, I did read that and many more pages from his book. He doesn't sound like someone

I want anywhere near the position he holds.

 

Do I have any proof? You mean other than a book filled with ideas about how to exterminate us? No. Do I need any more proof? I don't think so. Book speaks pretty clearly.

 

Like I said, I hope you or your family are some of the first victims of such ideologies.

But maybe you'll hop on board and cry "We're doing it for the planet!!!" as they use a nice soft kill weapon on you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmm...maybe yourself, right Plato?

 

 

I'm not qualified nor would I be interested.

 

 

 

I've got too many things on my mind right now to

be mad at you. I just like watching people like you get

mad at being negapropped and "strike out".

 

 

Ever see old football games where the "helmet slap" was given?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I'm listening to Curtis Mayfield right now, how could I be mad? This is what I get for trying to discuss science and politics on a graffiti message board.

 

Well, my attempt to have a reasoned debate with you has failed, so I guess I better just troll you. I heard this was yo boat fool:

 

incorrigible.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like to discuss such things with intelligent people. You're far from a dumbass, but it's obvious you have a need to defend people like this. It's not a scifi book, it's a college textbook. That should worry you. It should bring up feelings about defending your family and loved ones. You know, like real humans do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, scifi was definitely the wrong word to use there.

 

As a scientist, I'm very critical about opinion pieces like the one you posted. I looked at other pieces by the author that had been posted on that website; just looking at the titles all I saw was "radical" this, and "socialist" that. It seemed fairly clear that the dude has his own agenda and isn't likely to present more empirical information that considers different viewpoints on the issue. Kind of like you. I don't like politics. I do like science. I'm trying to tell you that, from a scientific point of view, what I read in that excerpt isn't "insane." Wrong, possibly. Again, he doesn't seem to be advocating anything in particular. He is merely presenting approaches to the problem of overpopulation. This problem could well be imminent. Do you have better solutions to overpopulation, assuming we don't colonize other planets/moons in time? 'Real humans' will do what 'real humans' have to do to survive, whether it scares you or not. Again, I'm not supporting these policies, I am approaching this from a detached vantage point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, scifi was definitely the wrong word to use there.

 

As a scientist, I'm very critical about opinion pieces like the one you posted. I looked at other pieces by the author that had been posted on that website; just looking at the titles all I saw was "radical" this, and "socialist" that. It seemed fairly clear that the dude has his own agenda and isn't likely to present more empirical information that considers different viewpoints on the issue. Kind of like you. I don't like politics. I do like science. I'm trying to tell you that, from a scientific point of view, what I read in that excerpt isn't "insane." Wrong, possibly. Again, he doesn't seem to be advocating anything in particular. He is merely presenting approaches to the problem of overpopulation. This problem could well be imminent. Do you have better solutions to overpopulation, assuming we don't colonize other planets/moons in time? 'Real humans' will do what 'real humans' have to do to survive, whether it scares you or not. Again, I'm not supporting these policies, I am approaching this from a detached vantage point.

 

 

How about we use all of this wonderful technology to advance the species and stop discussing how to kill off massive amounts of humans?

 

There are many things that can be implemented. It's 2009, we can knock missiles down with lasers. Feeding the populace isn't impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see anything in there about killing anyone. He was talking about using technology to help (or, if necessary, force) people to make more responsible decisions. If you're referring to the compulsory abortion thing, that was presented as a drastic measure for a situation in which overpopulation is wreaking havoc in a certain region. I do recognize that sounds ghastly. Bad shit happens in the world. And yes, feeding a vastly larger population may be impossible. At some point, the earth can only support so many people, regardless of technology. And population growth seems to be outstripping technology. It's quite possible that global population will reach crisis levels in the relatively near future. This is scientific consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any more recent sources on his views? Say in the last 3 decades or so?

 

Yes, actually. There are three more books he has published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Like any career scientist, he's published lots of stuff. Holdren's CV:

 

http://www.whrc.org/about_us/whos_who/CV/jholdren.htm

 

"Dr. Holdren's work has focused on causes and consequences of global environmental change, analysis of energy technologies and policies, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy."

 

Murder and evil seem conspicuously absent here.

 

 

 

Oh, and how about this guy:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Chu

 

Obama's Energy Secretary is a good dude. I hear he's not much of a politician but he's a great scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, actually. There are three more books he has published.

 

I saw that, but I was wondering if his views have changed in that time. The basis of your argument seems to be his 1977 publication. I just wanted to know if his views had changed substantially. People change you know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^Like any career scientist, he's published lots of stuff. Holdren's CV:

 

http://www.whrc.org/about_us/whos_who/CV/jholdren.htm

 

 

 

Oh, and how about this guy:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Chu

 

Obama's Energy Secretary is a good dude. I hear he's not much of a politician but he's a great scientist.

 

It is so refreshing to read about a secretary like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science Fiction 'Czar'

The disturbing intellectual record of Obama's science czar

 

Dr. John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy—better known as the "science czar"—has been a longtime prophet of environmental catastrophes. Never discouraged but never right.

 

And thanks to resourceful bloggers, you can read excerpts from a hard-to-find book co-authored by Holdren in the late 1970s, called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, online.

 

In it, you will find the czar wading into some unpleasant talk about mass sterilizations and abortions.

 

It's not surprising. Holdren spent the '70s boogying down to the vibes of an imaginary population catastrophe and global cooling. He also participated in the famous wager between scientist Paul Ehrlich, the now-discredited Population Bomb theorist (and co-author of Ecoscience), and economist Julian Simon, who believed human ingenuity would overcome demand.

 

Holdren was asked by Ehrlich to pick five natural resources that would experience shortages because of human consumption. He lost the bet on all counts, as the composite price index for the commodities he picked, including copper and chromium, fell by more than 40 percent.

 

Then again, it's one thing to be a bumbling soothsayer but quite another to underestimate the resourcefulness of mankind enough to ponder how "population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution," as Holdren did in Ecoscience in 1977.

 

The book, in fact, is sprinkled with comparable statements that passively discuss how coercive population control methods might rescue the world from ... well, humans.

 

When I called Holdren's office, I was told that the czar "does not now and never has been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive measures to limit fertility."

 

If that is so, I wondered, why is his name on a textbook that brought up such policy? Did he not write that part? Did he change his mind? Was it theoretical? No straightforward answer was forthcoming.

 

No big deal. Even today, many environmentalists and anti-immigration activists believe in the myth of population disaster. In this world, human spammers are a disease, not a cure.

 

And Holdren never has ceased peddling calamity as science.

 

Today, for instance, though Holdren publicly has tempered his aversion to population growth, he still advocates that government nudge us toward fewer children.

 

Instead of coercion, though, he is a fan of "motivation."

 

When, during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren was asked about his penchant for scientific overstatements, he responded that "the motivation for looking at the downside possibilities, the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction, is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time."

 

"Motivation" is when Holdren tells us that global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion people by 2020. Or when he claimed that sea levels could rise by 13 feet by the end of this century when your run-of-the-mill alarmist warns of only 13 inches.

 

"Motivating"—or, in other words, scaring the hell out of people—about "possibilities" is an ideological and political weapon unsheathed in the effort to pass policies that, in the end, coerce us to do the right thing.

 

Holdren's past flies in the face of Barack Obama's contention, made on the day of the science czar's appointment, that his administration was "ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology."

 

Holdren embodies the opposite, actually.

 

http://www.reason.com/news/show/134795.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand being skeptical about hearing most of this stuff, being as most of the writings published have been out for quite some time.

 

However you can read just as equally disturbing stuff that was written by a lot of other prominent figures in government. Hillary Clinton comes to mind, speaking very interestingly about the role of the family. Comparing it to slavery.

 

I'm sure as most of these people age and matured their views have altered some what. However I do not think it is cool at ALL, to have officials working in our own government's administration that at least at some time thought that the sterilization of males through our drinking water, is a good idea.

 

Any male or person that holds onto the dream of having a family some day should be doing everything in their own power to get that person out of that position.

 

Seriously, I realize there is a resource issue at hand, but how about looking at it with the perspective of using our technology to fix these issues. Not sterilizing and killing off the populace to fix said issues.

 

The fact that most of you can brush off such claims is pretty fucking scary to me.

 

How bout the group of people that actually thinks this is a good idea sterilizes themselves, and force the women in their own families to go through said abortions.

 

Fuck all of those double standard, hypocritical, faggots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Casek that last article just reiterates the first article with less bile. Still harping on the 30 year old, out of print textbook that was taken totally out of context in the first place. Your argument has officially gotten stale.

 

Seriously, I realize there is a resource issue at hand, but how about looking at it with the perspective of using our technology to fix these issues. Not sterilizing and killing off the populace to fix said issues.

 

The fact that most of you can brush off such claims is pretty fucking scary to me.

 

Nobody is advocating "sterilizing and killing off the populace." The wild "claims" being made here are in the article casek posted. I see very meager evidence to make these claims, and the article is unabashedly biased from the beginning. Pure political mudslinging. Also, what's with this vague idea of using technology to fix everything? It's not that simple. Overpopulation is a looming issue; this is scientific consensus, ask a scientist. The earth provides a finite supply of resources. It's a simple equation. Actually, in many ways, advancing technology leads to greater use of resources. Holdren apparently took overpopulation predictions too seriously too early. In any case, it looks like he recognized the moral and social problems presented by the possibilities considered in that textbook. I'm not "brushing" anything off, I'm looking deeper into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is saying that.

 

Whatever you say man. Whatever you say.

 

To be clear though when I said that I wasn't just referring to the opinions being posted in the last 2 pages in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody is saying that.

 

Whatever you say man. Whatever you say.

 

To be clear though when I said that I wasn't just referring to the opinions being posted in the last 2 pages in this thread.

 

OK...the point is that you, casek, and the person who wrote the article casek posted are all buying into an extreme misinterpretation of what this guy Holdren is about. I'm not being skeptical so much as pointing out the abundantly clear fact that this is just anti-Obama propaganda. Look at the other shit the author of that article has written. And before you accuse me, I'm not a rabid obama-phile. This just seems obvious to me. It's hard to know what to say to people who spin the facts this much.

 

Also, overpopulation is widely considered to be the root cause of the Rwandan genocide. Something to think about for those who don't believe overpopulation is a problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article is relevant, and it mentions Holdren. I think some people on this forum would do well to take the general message here to heart. That is, opposing top scientists on ideological/political grounds without any relevant scientific expertise yourself is pretty stupid.

 

Edit: The article is from Newsweek.

 

 

Daniel Lyons

An SOS for Science

 

Clean energy should trump politics.

 

 

 

Two weeks ago I spent time with some of the top scientists in the field of alternative energy, including John Holdren, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, a.k.a. our national "science czar." We were attending a conference in Washington, D.C., that drew CEOs of Fortune 100 companies, as well as entrepreneurs and investors. I came away convinced that the United States, which for decades has been the world leader in science and technology, will soon be eclipsed by China and other countries. Alternative energy is the next tidal wave in tech innovation. If we miss it, we will not only weaken our economy and harm our national security—we will turn ourselves into a second-rate nation. And as I sat there listening to the experts speak, all I could think was, we're doomed. (Click here to follow Daniel Lyons)

 

It's not because our scientists aren't brilliant. They are. But look at what they're up against: a noisy babble of morons and Luddites, the "Drill, baby, drill" crowd, the birthers, and tea-party kooks who have done their best to derail health-care reform and will do the same to any kind of energy policy. Holdren has an undergraduate degree from MIT and a Ph.D. from Stanford; he has won countless awards for his work on nuclear proliferation, climate change, alternative energy, and population growth. But now he must sell his ideas to people who couldn't pass high-school algebra—and who believe they know more than he does.

 

In Holdren's case the attacks began after TV madman Glenn Beck claimed Holdren advocates controlling population growth by putting sterilants in drinking water and forcing women to have abortions. No matter that the claims are not true, and that Beck is a clown who cares only about boosting ratings for his show. The dopes howled for Holdren to resign. Holdren told me the controversy was no big deal, "just a blip." But this kind of idiocy makes scientists and policymakers timid. I moderated a panel that included Holdren and asked him whether we ought to put a tax on gasoline. This would reduce CO2 emissions, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and spur investments in wind and solar. Holdren ducked the question, saying tax policy wasn't his area of expertise. I'm told that a gas tax is a political nonstarter. But it shouldn't be. Also, if our nation's top scientist can't freely speak his mind, what does that say about us?

 

At the same conference in Washington—the National Energy Summit, hosted by the Council on Competitiveness, with NEWSWEEK as a media partner—Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, spoke during lunch and explained, with a straight face, a bill she has proposed that would exempt power plants and manufacturing companies from having to comply with EPA standards about CO2 emissions. Her reason: we don't want to hurt the economy. Murkowski's bill is an example of a tactic that people in the computer industry call FUD—fear, uncertainty, and doubt. IBM used to spread FUD to stymie new companies that came along with cheaper, better computers. The gist was, "Sure, the new stuff is better, but it's risky. And it will be painful to switch. Why not play it safe and stick with what you've got?" That's what Murkowski and her allies would have us believe about energy technology.

 

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is racing past us. In solar energy, the leaders are Japan, Germany, and China. In wind, it's Germany, Spain, and Denmark. In nuclear, it's France. "You can go up and down the list—in some cases we're players, but we're no longer leading," says Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. The current administration has boosted spending on energy research. But to really catch up, Cicerone says we'll need "a sustained commitment the likes of which are hard to see in American history."

 

Do we really have the stomach for that? I doubt it. A half century ago we had our "sputnik moment," when, spurred by fear of falling behind the Soviets, we made big investments in science, technology, and education. But we're a different people now. Cosseted by 50 years of prosperity, we are fearful of change and unwilling to make short-term sacrifice for long-term gain. Alternative energy is going to be an enormous market, one that will give birth to the next Google and Microsoft. Will those future tech giants be based in the United States? Only if we support our scientists instead of throwing up obstacles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...