Author Topic: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?  (Read 747 times)

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #50 on: December 23, 2009, 07:53:21 PM »

Well my assumption was based on the fact that most people I have spoken to about this insist that anyone who challenges any aspect of this global warming push is a stooge for the major oil giants, since they apparently don't want this. I wasn't putting words in your mouth, it was a genuine assumption on my part and one I hadn't even challenged until I recently did some more research on the topic.

Your response to the second question leads me to this

BBC Interviewer calls claim that Arctic ice would disappear by 2030 “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism”

Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.
In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.
The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.

Sackur accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” based on “exaggeration and alarmism,” pointing out that it was “preposterous” to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle that has survived much warmer periods in history, would completely melt when it had stood firm for hundreds of thousands of years.
“There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear,” said Sackur.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” Leipold was eventually forced to admit.

However, Leipold made no apologies for Greenpeace’s tactic of “emotionalizing issues” as a means of trying to get the public to accept its stance on global warming.
He also argued that economic growth in the United States and around the world should be suppressed and that overpopulation and high standards of living should be combated because of the perceived damage they were doing to the environment,

Should be combated! the world is at the very beginnings of a global depression and this individual says we should stop having a standard of living. You see when I say they want x, it's not my opinion, their own words reveal where they want this heading.
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #51 on: December 25, 2009, 03:57:56 AM »
Haha so there is a difference on making a direct assumption on what I supposedly believe, and 'putting words in my mouth'?



C'mon man, you slipping into spin-doctor mode now.

See, you posting that article is what I mean by 'stop getting all your information from the internet', because you obviously seem to have a preference for articles that skewer reality to meet your perspective: instead of showing me an article by an author who tells me what the Greenpeace founder supposedly said, show me what the Greenpeace leader said firsthand, show me a primary source. Thats basic Knowledge God shit.


If you actually critically analyse that article you posted note how it does not directly quote the Greenpeace leader as saying over-population and economic growth is a problem. Same goes for that 'British admit Copenhagen is all about genocide' article'. My mind too strong moving at an exceptional pace.


Spin-doctors operate behind enemy lines,
the mind is most dangerous weapon alive
« Last Edit: December 25, 2009, 04:01:32 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #52 on: December 25, 2009, 05:36:01 AM »
Haha so there is a difference on making a direct assumption on what I supposedly believe, and 'putting words in my mouth'?



C'mon man, you slipping into spin-doctor mode now.

See, you posting that article is what I mean by 'stop getting all your information from the internet', because you obviously seem to have a preference for articles that skewer reality to meet your perspective: instead of showing me an article by an author who tells me what the Greenpeace founder supposedly said, show me what the Greenpeace leader said firsthand, show me a primary source. Thats basic Knowledge God shit.

If it's basic knowledge then you should know the difference between the founder and leader, the person featured on here was the leader, not the founder who left green peace because he saw that it was being taken over, basic knowledge etc

If you actually critically analyse that article you posted note how it does not directly quote the Greenpeace leader as saying over-population and economic growth is a problem. Same goes for that 'British admit Copenhagen is all about genocide' article'. My mind too strong moving at an exceptional pace.


Spin-doctors operate behind enemy lines,
the mind is most dangerous weapon alive

[/quote]

Now as for what he did say, "we definitely need to change the concept of economic growth" if you critically analyse you will note the cryptic language and if you critically analyse the cryptic language you will see what he means. In fact why are we even arguing about this? they have already stated what their aims are from the contraction and convergence agreement, don't believe me, research it for yourself.

Anyways back onto the video clip, you seem to interpret me posting these comments from papers as the only confirmation whereas I have lost count of the number of times I have heard said people say these things. In fact scratch that, i haven't just heard these people say these things, i had the misfortune to read many of these things to, articles and books written by these people.

Nevertheless, here is the vid clip

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/xrosjGQdquw" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/xrosjGQdquw</a>
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #53 on: December 27, 2009, 04:26:15 AM »
LOL

so from "we definitely need to change the concept of economic growth"

you get:

'
He argued that economic growth in the United States and around the world should be
suppressed and that overpopulation and high standards of living should be combated because
of the perceived damage they were doing to the environment'
'?



He did not argue for that, cha'mon now son.

And you dodging my point: those articles you posted are not based on actual primary references, that is, first hand quotations but they present and interpret information as if it is.

That isn't concerned about the truth; its tabloid stretch and spin, its no different to mainstream media stretch and spin.
If you can't see that then you become a vessel of propaganda like any other.



Its amazing how you people get so worked up about getting label 'conspiracy theorist' but when 1 man who heads an organization based on public support says something like that.

Like what? You didn't know? LOL you didn't know that people out there think yeah this is bullshit the way we buy shit and just chuck shit away. Its a big problem. What needs to replace a totally individual freedom consumerist orientated world is an individual freedom consumerist orientated world but with sustainable infrastructure, consumerist products and industry. Don't forget that the Earth is also a habitat as well.



Globalization is there to be criticized. But it is not all hell & doom.


We need people to think in different perspectives. That is at the essence of the emerging global governance that originates from nation's laws, and the understanding between nations that is international law. People are always critical, but if you look at the foundations from a legal perspective it is very interesting because its like global society has gone a certain way. If you know the foundations of why a lot of these things have been done: it really isn't based on bad intentions to the critical aspect as it is presented. People on the planet simply have constant needs, constantly. Constantly needing, so there has to be order and structure to make sure that we as a species can continue on in the direction we are intended to towards freedom-understanding and observation of the Creation.

But freedom is not simply synonymous with just having as much shit as we want to consume, although that is a excellent part of it.  

Although virtuoso, there is a lot of things that I know would alarm you and that somethings that were a blast to learn and at some point did alarm me too.

but understand that global governance, or one world governance, is tied up in state interest. Directly in fact. Very much intertwined because it is all based on the co-operation of any given central national government. It sounds basic, but that is mos definitely a big chunk of the truth. It is primarily based on co-operation, not coercion. Although any real Makaveli Hobbesian realist knows coercion is there to exist.  8)




« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 07:07:10 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #54 on: December 27, 2009, 07:51:41 AM »

Dude what do you think he means by that? he is saying we need to reinvent the wheel, lets not think of economic growth as an improved standard of living anymore. We need to retract economic growth therefore lowering peoples living because "we are consuming too much" we need to keep lowering peoples standard of living until we are happy that we are at a sustainable level. Meanwhile we will create a regulatory system to tightly monitor and punish those who look to flout these laws meanwhile those who have robbed us blind get to administer things from the very top, because some are more equal than others. What you seem to so fully support is communism, you can use rhetoric like individual freedom but then you talk about the need to dictate "coercion". You then seem to play down what a dangerous path this is heading down when in fact this is brought to us by the very same people who engineered 9/11, who engineered 7/7, the bali bombings.

Every day we are being attacked by some line of thinking, either the manufactured terrorism, warnings of huge famines for the earth, unsustainable developmemt or global warming. All of which have course have a "global solution" and as for speaking about a wonderful constitution, lets say this was benevolent, america had a wonderful constitution and piece by piece they have eroded it, what's going to happen when a global bureaucracy heads down the same road? then you will have total enslavement no where to run, no means of dispute, which is the antithesis to what the west is supposed to be.



 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #55 on: December 27, 2009, 08:14:44 AM »
Goddamnit man it isn't as simple as slowing economic growth. That itself is pointless, rather it is a change in the nature of the economy through laws and social values so as to gear the world towards sustainability, yes that means an initial decline in growth over some areas but that itself is not the purpose: the aim is for growth in different directions.



Stop holding onto feelings , everybody is dirty in this game.

And nations and people know that. Look at global governance: its every country. The majority of nations co-operating, it dosn't always work but it is based on national co-operation.


Everybody is a son of a bitch with blood on their hands.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 08:26:44 AM by Illuminati Clique »
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #56 on: December 27, 2009, 08:48:10 AM »
Goddamnit man it isn't as simple as slowing economic growth. That itself is pointless, rather it is a change in the nature of the economy through laws and social values so as to gear the world towards sustainability, yes that means an initial decline in growth over some areas but that itself is not the purpose: the aim is for growth in different directions.



Stop holding onto feelings , everybody is dirty in this game.

And nations and people know that. Look at global governance: its every country. The majority of nations co-operating, it dosn't always work but it is based on national co-operation.


Everybody is a son of a bitch with blood on their hands.

Economic value is measured by the total value of all good and services, therefore we use economic growth as an indicator to measure standard of living. We will take last years total goods and services and compare it to this years for instance. Economists in this country use a fictitious target of 2.5 economic growth, now that doesn't mean the economy is growing by 2.5%, it means just to keep pace with the inflationary figures recorded by the BOE which are in themselves extremely manipulated) then we need to record economic growth at this rate. If we don't keep pace, lets say economic growth is 1%, then we have become 1.5% poorer in the space of a year. So you can imagine then the ramifications when recently it was announced that the economy had contracted by over 4%, which in real terms means a reduction in wealth of some 6.5% just in one year.

Now what this man is stating is that we need to do away with economic growth as it exists now, that individuals standards of living should no longer be important because we have to save the planet instead. So far from the statements of suppression being incorrect, or inaccurate, they are the consequences which would unfold through this man's stated aim.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 09:02:59 AM by virtuoso »
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: 100,000+ protesting in Copenhagen?
« Reply #57 on: December 27, 2009, 10:33:30 PM »
yes that means an initial decline in growth over some areas but that itself is not the purpose: the aim is for growth in different directions.