Climate-change activists call for tax policies to discourage childbirth

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I don't believe climate change is a lie.

I do believe climate change is being used for a global oppressive tax scheme.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Any real environmentalis should be fighting strongly agains mass immigration. Any supporter of immigration is anti-environment.

This has always puzzled me.

On one hand they're telling us to turn off electric lights and even TVs on standby mode; then, completely nullifying the effect of such action, invite millions of third worlders to swell the already bloated populations of Europe and North America.

These globalist mugs need to get their heads around a table and figure out exactly what they are trying to achieve.

It's always been obvious to me that people are the problem. There are just too damn many human beings on the planet. 7.4 billion with 80 million added every year...and no contingency plan as the world slowly turns into a sauna.

Sort it out Obama, Merkel, Soros.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Another guise to control something,I'm sure these groups all have the solution,so someone else can control energy at a cost to others and a large profit to these supposed "Green partys" look at the backgrounds big money backing them

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse's quoted news story
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Friday, August 19, 2016

Climate-change activists are mobilizing to cut the birthrate, arguing that richer nations should discourage people having children in order to protect them from the ravages of global warming and reduce emissions.

How do you not have something, and then that protects the thing that doesn't exist?

Anyhoo, I think they meant to spare them from living in some made-up, alarmist scenario where earth will be a living (or dying) hell. Regardless, both notions are nonsensical.

AGW activism is all about controlling the individual through fear and other emotions--it's so obvious to the thinking person that it amazes me that it still has legs with anyone.

Oh, right--I said "thinking person."

Though I do agree that we need population/birth control, there must be a better way.

Don't any of you moan and complain about it, because it's for the sake of the human race and the planet! You need to think past your personal interests and needs and think at a higher level. We are a species, its not just you.

originally posted by: Kuroodo
Though I do agree that we need population/birth control, there must be a better way.

Don't any of you moan and complain about it, because it's for the sake of the human race and the planet! You need to think past your personal interests and needs and think at a higher level. We are a species, its not just you.

Logical, long term responsibility, that doesn't immediately affect individuals?

Only if you can get past the "right now" and "me, me, me" people.

I agree with you. I am pro planet.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Apparently as long as you are from a third world country you could have 20 children if you want, but if you live in a western, first world civilization, then the AGW camp wants to control your life

Whats funny is that in Western economies with a declining birthrate there is a corresponding shrinkage in tax collections - how's the future going to be paid? How is foreign aid to be raised when we cant even look after our own, Buts its ok if you're from a "developing nation" keep on breeding

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Friday, August 19, 2016

Climate-change activists are mobilizing to cut the birthrate, arguing that richer nations should discourage people having children in order to protect them from the ravages of global warming and reduce emissions.

Travis Rieder, assistant director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, told NPR that bringing down global fertility by half a child per woman “could be the thing that saves us.”

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” said Mr. Rieder, who has one child.

He proposed procreation disincentives such as government tax breaks for poor people and tax penalties for rich people, a kind of “carbon tax on kids.”

Poor nations would be cut slack “because they’re still developing, and because their per capita emissions are a sliver of the developed world’s. Plus, it just doesn’t look good for rich, Western nations to tell people in poor ones not to have kids,” NPR said.
...

www.washingtontimes.com...

Well, it seems that the AGW camp is already making demands to be able to control people's lives. At least people in western civilizations. Apparently as long as you are from a third world country you could have 20 children if you want, but if you live in a western, first world civilization, then the AGW camp wants to control your life and they have to decide how many children you can have.

Wait...so one man says something provocative and outrageous about Climate Change and you lump everyone who believes scientists into some "AGW Camp" because of it. Can you say delusional? LOL

So,

"Anti-racist" is already code for anti-white.

Anti-global-warming must mean . . . anti-white.


Who is surprised.

Children are bad. But rich kids are worse. Got it.

Funny how "Equality" never involves treating people the same. Somehow "the same" equals "unfair." We have separate rules for white people than for everyone else.

To update Von Klausewitz:

Politics is race-war by other means.

originally posted by: projectvxn

I don't believe climate change is a lie.

I was referring to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) which is being blamed on mankind, hence the anthropogenic part. Of course climate change does occur. Climate changes are always occurring. The difference is that Climate Change is being blamed on mankind to simply control mankind.

originally posted by: projectvxn
I do believe climate change is being used for a global oppressive tax scheme.

It isn't just a global oppressive tax scheme, as you can see from the excerpts and links I provided that there is a depopulation and population control scheme/s going on as well. The elites want to tax rich nations, meanwhile they continue to implement forceful sterilization in third world countries, which eventually will also occur, once again, in western nations once their tax schemes have milked people living in western nations.

But do notice that according to elites like the Gates, they want to lower CO2 emissions as close to 0 as possible. People are always going to need services which release CO2 into the atmosphere. Be it for warming or cooling a home, cooking, transporting food, and other basic staples that we need, services in hospitals that also need to use resources that release CO2, etc, etc.

What Bill Gates essentially stated in his own webpage and to other world elites is that those services will have to be reduced substantially. Most of the people who are part of the AGW camp don't seem to realize what they are rooting for, since they believe "it's for our own good". But what these global schemes will do in general, apart from the most sinister parts of the global plan which includes depopulation and population control, is that among other things the services that people need will be reduced greatly.

Because they want to implement more and more taxes, which won't stop nor mitigate climate change, the increased taxation will have to be paid of course by every regular person. This will mean gasoline prices will skyrocket, food prices, and other basic needs will also skyrocket in price and will be reduced to a point that first world nations will become third world nations.

This is imo the reason why there are predictions that the United States will become a third world nation by 2025, such as the Deagel.com website predicts.

We have had a few threads about this from 2014.

Anyone Ever Heard of Deagel.Com?

Deagel and the End of The World as We Know It

socioecohistory.wordpress.com...

Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems

Corey J. A. Bradshaw1 and Barry W. Brook

Author Affiliations

The Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia

Edited by Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved September 15, 2014 (received for review June 5, 2014)

Abstract
Full Text
Authors & Info
Figures
SI
Metrics
Related Content
PDF
PDF + SI

Significance

The planet’s large, growing, and overconsuming human population, especially the increasing affluent component, is rapidly eroding many of the Earth’s natural ecosystems. However, society’s only real policy lever to reduce the human population humanely is to encourage lower per capita fertility. How long might fertility reduction take to make a meaningful impact? We examined various scenarios for global human population change to the year 2100 by adjusting fertility and mortality rates (both chronic and short-term interventions) to determine the plausible range of outcomes. Even one-child policies imposed worldwide and catastrophic mortality events would still likely result in 5–10 billion people by 2100. Because of this demographic momentum, there are no easy ways to change the broad trends of human population size this century.
...

www.pnas.org...

This is being done despite the fact that studies have found fertility dropping in rate since the 1930s.

Italian Male Fertility Plummets, Population to Drop

This "overpopulation problem is being espoused by the elites despite the fact that the UN's own projections state that world fertility rates are declining.



esa.un.org...

It is only obvious that these schemes for "population control and depopulation", alongside the tax increases the elites want implemented are only their scapegoat to control the world population and everything we do in our daily lives. This is not happening because "they think they can save the planet or humanity", but it is in fact happening because the elites simply love to control everyone.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

China did the same thing, for 40 years china one child policy was in effect, the results of this policy actually work, but the problems is that it created a big discrepancy in the aging vs young generation in the country, something that had very big repercussion in the label force.

Now after 40 years the ban has not been lifted but the policy is been lax so couples can have more children.

Another tax for the boogeyman carbon dioxide. Nice.

We need another planet. That way the alarmists, crackpots, and control freaks can have their utopia without hurting anyone else. One thing we should enforce should we find them their own little planet: if you go, don't come back. If you got it wrong, sleep in the bed you made.

*sigh* If it were only possible.

I honestly wish I could say I am surprised at this latest episode of insanity, but I am frankly not. The movie Idiocracy is not a comedy; it's a freakin' documentary. Upgraydd lives.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The difference is that Climate Change is being blamed on mankind to simply control mankind.

I simply disagree.

CO2 is opaque to IR radiation. Meaning that is traps heat. We release about 40 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly. To say this doesn't have an effect is to ignore the properties of CO2 and how it contributes to the greenhouse effect.

a reply to: projectvxn

Except for the fact that water vapor accounts for 97% of the greenhouse effect. The Earth did not start warming 100 years ago, the present climate changes began much earlier, as early as at least the 1600s according to global borehole temperatures.



Despite the fact that CO2 levels have kept increasing, instead what has been seen is a pause, or hiatus in the warming. Even Michael Mann, the infamous scientist who came up with the Hockey Stick graph has had to admit that there has been a pause in the warming, and instead what we have been seen in 2015-2016 has been caused by the Super El Niño (ENSO)

February 2015, Volume 172, Issue 2, pp 531–543

Evidence for Nonlinear Coupling of Solar and ENSO Signals in Indian Temperatures During the Past Century

R. K. Tiwari, Rekapalli Rajesh, B. Padmavathi

Abstract

Significant fluctuations have been observed in Indian temperatures during past century. In order to identify the statistical periodicities in the maximum and minimum temperature data of different Indian zones, we have spectrally and statistically analyzed the homogeneous regional temperature series from the Western Himalayas, the Northern West, the North Central, the North East (NE), the West Coast, the East Coast, and the Interior Peninsula for the period of 107 years spanning over 1901–2007 using the multitaper method (MTM) and singular spectrum analysis (SSA) methods. The first SSA reconstructed the principal component of all the data sets representing a nonlinear trend (indicating a monotonic rise in temperature probably due to greenhouse gases and other forcing) that varies from region to region. We have reconstructed the temperature time series using the second to tenth oscillatory principal components of all the eight regions and computed their power spectral density using MTM. Our analyses indicate that there is a strong spectral power in the period range of 2–7 years and 53 years, which are matched respectively with the known El Niño–Southern oscillation (ENSO) periods and ocean circulation cycles. Further, the spectral analysis also revealed a statistically significant but riven cycle in a period range of 9.8–13 years corresponding to the Schwabe cycle in all Indiaian maximum and minimum temperature records and almost all the zonal records except in the NE data. In some of the cases, the 22 year double sunspot (Hale cycle) cycle was also identified here. Invariably the splitting of spectral peaks corresponding to solar signal indicated nonlinear characteristics of the data and; therefore, even small variations in the solar output may help in catalyzing the coupled El Niño-atmospheric ENSO cycles by altering the solar heat input to the oceans. We, therefore, conclude that the Indian temperature variability is probably driven by the nonlinear coupling of ENSO and solar activity.

link.springer.com...

ENSO and changes to the NAO are driven by solar activity, and not CO2. The fact that Earth's magnetic field has been weakening makes the changes in the sun even more pronounced causing climate chaos, and weather anomalies, plus the myriad of other changes that are occurring to the Earth.

NASA News & Feature Releases
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

Mar. 20, 2003

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
...
Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

That research above was only focused from 1978 until 2002, and during that period the research covered, it was found that the Sun's activity during periods of quiet sunspot activity had been increasing.



The blue data points on the graph shows the number of magnetic storms from the Sun which had continued to increase until 2006. That coupled with the fact that the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening has been allowing more radiation/energy to enter our Earth's atmosphere. What happens to a planet and it's atmosphere which is allowing more and more radiation/energy to enter it? (Remember that there is a lag in the response on Earth's temperatures because our oceans store a lot of energy when the sun's activity has been increasing, and as the sun's activity lowers this extra heat stored in our oceans is released)

Then again, remember that a lot of the warming we have been experiencing has been caused by the anomalous event known as ENSO which has nothing to do with CO2, as it is mainly solar driven.

A simulated lagged response of the North Atlantic Oscillation to the solar cycle over the period 1960–2009
Numerous studies have suggested an impact of the 11 year solar cycle on the winter North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), with an increased tendency for positive (negative) NAO signals to occur at maxima (minima) of the solar cycle. Climate models have successfully reproduced this solar cycle modulation of the NAO, although the magnitude of the effect is often considerably weaker than implied by observations. A leading candidate for the mechanism of solar influence is via the impact of ultraviolet radiation variability on heating rates in the tropical upper stratosphere, and consequently on the meridional temperature gradient and zonal winds. Model simulations show a zonal mean wind anomaly that migrates polewards and downwards through wave–mean flow interaction. On reaching the troposphere this produces a response similar to the winter NAO. Recent analyses of observations have shown that solar cycle–NAO link becomes clearer approximately three years after solar maximum and minimum. Previous modelling studies have been unable to reproduce a lagged response of the observed magnitude. In this study, the impact of solar cycle on the NAO is investigated using an atmosphere–ocean coupled climate model.
...

link.springer.com...

The AGW camp has always claimed that CO2 is the most important factor behind climate change, but if it was true then there would have been no hiatus. Again, the warming caused by ENSO or the NAO is not associated with CO2, but they are solar driven, and since the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since about the 1840s, and in 2014 became 10 times weaker this shows the current climate change is in fact being caused by the Sun, and the changes Earth's magnetic field has been undergoing.

COMMENTARY:
Making sense of the early-
2000s warming slowdown
John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer,
Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka and Neil C. Swart

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.
...

Link

originally posted by: projectvxn

I simply disagree.

CO2 is opaque to IR radiation. Meaning that is traps heat. We release about 40 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly. To say this doesn't have an effect is to ignore the properties of CO2 and how it contributes to the greenhouse effect.

Let me address this statement you made and ask you a question.

First, just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it doesn't mean that it is the factor that has been causing the warming, more so since water vapor is 10 times more potent molecule by molecule than CO2 and water vapor is more abundant.

Second of all, if it was CO2 the cause of the climate change, then why is it that most GCM (Global Circulation models) have got it wrong?



Why is it that the ongoing climate change seems to coincide with other changes Earth, and our sun have been undergoing?

We had a super El Niño in 1997-1998, and 1998 was one of the warmest years.

We had a strong el Niño in 2010.

We just had the strongest Super El Niño in 2015-2016, and as I have proven these anomalous events are solar driven, and not CO2 driven.

If CO2 was truly the most important factor, or very important factor then why has there been a hiatus in temperatures? (temperatures not related to ENSO and NAO)

Just because CO2 is a greenhouse, it doesn't mean it causes the warming claimed by the AGW camp, more so when observation differs so much from the models, and more so because there are other changes occurring to Earth which do cause climate changes.

Here is a graph showing the temperatures from the last 3 ENSO events, 2 of them (1997-1998 and 2015-2016) have been super El Niño events which caused the extreme temperatures. The 2010 el Niño was a strong event, but not as strong as the other two.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The difference is that Climate Change is being blamed on mankind to simply control mankind.

I simply disagree.

CO2 is opaque to IR radiation. Meaning that is traps heat. We release about 40 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly. To say this doesn't have an effect is to ignore the properties of CO2 and how it contributes to the greenhouse effect.

40 million tons. Is that it? Not very much.

The physically COLD evidence of global warming...not..www.sott.net... g-snowpack-remains-on-Scottish-mountain

originally posted by: Nathan-D
40 million tons. Is that it? Not very much.

Compared to the estimate over 3 million underwater volcanoes releasing CO2? 40 million tons of CO2 is not that much. We are only monitoring 33 land volcanoes out of 150 land volcanoes. We are not monitoring most underwater volcanoes which far surpass the number of land volcanoes. Then there is degassing from other areas, and the other natural sources of CO2. The AGW camp don't realize how much CO2 natural sources release which far surpass the amount we humans release.