The end justifies the means, fair or foul …

We have seen science corrupted and perverted to raise awareness, funding, and to advance a particular political ideology that is all about creating and managing resources and scarcity to achieve their ends.We have seen the mainstream media sensationalize and distort scientific finding and report low-probability events with near certitude; often overlooking that the world is filled with well-credentialed researchers pursuing crackpot ideas. And, it almost always seems that the “movement” behind the screen is one that is socialistic, believes in population control, and wants unlimited funding and political power to do the right thing. The proverbial floor is littered with false, misleading, or nonsensical prior predictions that have fallen widely from the mark – and yet the politicians and mainstream media continue to overlook these dramatic and costly failures in reporting today’s flavor of urgent planet-protecting nonsense.


The Catholic Church, lead by a self-avowed socialist, is the last place one might find “honest science” that was unrelated to political power … 

Biologists say half of all species could be extinct by end of century

Scientists at Vatican conference are searching for a solution to the manmade ‘major extinction event’    

[OCS: Notice how the headline and first sentence reports with near certainty – the remote possibility of such an event?]

One in five species on Earth now faces extinction, and that will rise to 50% by the end of the century unless urgent action is taken. That is the stark view of the world’s leading biologists, ecologists and economists who will gather on Monday to determine the social and economic changes needed to save the planet’s biosphere.

[OCS: Like global warming itself, there is always a dramatic and cataclysmic event, an urgency to deal with the issue, and the admission somewhere that the research is fluid, based on unproven and unrealistic computer models, and that we must be prepared to provide massive funding and near unlimited political power to stave-off a planetary emergency. And, just who are these “world’s leading biologists, ecologists, and economists. Since when have economists ever gotten things right? This reminds me of the line in Indiana Jones when the government is questioned about who is studying the Ark of the Covenant and the reply is “top men.” ]

“The living fabric of the world is slipping through our fingers without our showing much sign of caring,” say the organisers of the Biological Extinction conference held at the Vatican this week.

Threatened creatures such as the tiger or rhino may make occasional headlines, but little attention is paid to the eradication of most other life forms, they argue. But as the conference will hear, these animals and plants provide us with our food and medicine. They purify our water and air while also absorbing carbon emissions from our cars and factories, regenerating soil, and providing us with aesthetic inspiration.

Over half of world's wild primate species face extinction, report reveals

Researchers warn of approaching ‘major extinction event’ if action is not taken to protect around 300 species, including gorillas, chimps, lemurs and lorises

[OCS: Where is the credible and replicatable proof, presented in an open forum, and subjected to cross-examination to find flaws in the methodology that might falsify the findings? Oh! “Skeptics and Deniers” are not welcome at the events – especially as presenters. I guess we must take the word of these “top men.”]

Rich western countries are now siphoning up the planet’s resources and destroying its ecosystems at an unprecedented rate,” said biologist Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford University in California. “We want to build highways across the Serengeti to get more rare earth minerals for our cellphones. We grab all the fish from the sea, wreck the coral reefs and put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We have triggered a major extinction event. The question is: how do we stop it?

[OCS: There it is: the reference to those horrible capitalists “siphoning” up the planet’s resources.  How do we know what has triggered, if anything, a major extinction event when such an event is ill-defined and is unpredictable?

Does anyone else recognize the name Paul Ehrlich – one of the loudest proponents of  population control and the now discredited Malthusian view of planetary resources -- and hardly an unbiased and credible source?]

Monday’s meeting is one of a series set up by the Vatican on ecological issues – which Pope Francis has deemed an urgent issue for the Catholic church. “We need to unravel the processes that led to the ills we are now facing,” said one of the conference’s organisers, the economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, of Cambridge University. “That is why the Vatican symposia involve natural and social scientists, as well as scholars from the humanities. That the symposia are being held at the Papal Academy is also symbolic. It shows that the ancient hostility between science and the church, at least on the issue of preserving Earth’s services, has been quelled.”

[OCS: There is no proof that the Church, under a non-socialist papal leadership, will adopt science over dogma. Paragraph 159 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in regards to faith and science: " Faith and Science: Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.” Yeah right! Unless you have, like some of the population control and global warming activists, turned a particular theme of science into a faith unto itself.]

But not everyone is happy about the meeting. The involvement of Ehrlich – who believes that wider use of birth control is needed to halt the world’s spiralling population – has been denounced by many conservative Catholics. They have set up a petition calling for the pope to withdraw the invitation for him to speak on Monday. “I believe they have about 11,000 signatures,” Ehrlich told the Observer. “The pope has not changed his mind, however.”

He [the Pope] remained uncompromising on population control: “If you value people, you want to have the maximum number you can support sustainably. You do not want almost 12 billion living unsustainably on Earth by the end of the century – with the result that civilisation will collapse and there are only a few hundred survivors.”

If everyone consumed resources at the US level, you will need another four or five Earths

Paul Ehrlich, biologist

[OCS: Pope Francis, while appearing to be a decent sort of chap, is a committed socialist and will promote his ideology even when it conflicts with the Church’s long-held and fundamental teachings.]

A world population of around a billion would have an overall pro-life effect, Ehrlich argued. This could be supported for many millennia and sustain many more human lives in the long term compared with our current uncontrolled growth and prospect of sudden collapse.

This point was backed by another conference organiser, biologist Professor Peter Raven, of the Missouri Botanical Garden. “By the beginning of the next century we face the prospect of losing half our wildlife. Yet we rely on the living world to sustain ourselves. It is very frightening. The extinctions we face pose an even greater threat to civilisation than climate change – for the simple reason they are irreversible.”

[OCS: It appears that the conference organizers may be somewhat biased. Raven is not what I would deem an unbiased scientific observer as his best known work, “Butterflies and Plants: A Study in Coevolution” was  published in the journal Evolution in 1964 with co-author Paul R. Ehrlich. Top men, indeed! Also notice that he believes that climate change is reversible – a remarkably safe observation since the climate has been hotter, colder and continues to oscillate between ice ages and warming periods. ]

UN statistics suggest that the global population will increase from the current 7.4 billion to 11.2 billion by 2100. And as Dasgupta noted, most of these extra billions will appear in Africa, where the fertility rate is still twice that of the rest of the world.

[OCS:  The United Nations has an abysmal and corrupt record of self-serving projections.]

“[Africa’s] population is likely to go from roughly one billion now to around 4 billion,” said Dasgupta. “Can you imagine what tensions there are going to be there, especially with climate change coming and hitting the continent more than anywhere else? What do you think is going to happen when the arid regions spread, and a hundred million Africans try to swim across the Mediterranean? It is terrifying.”

[OCS: Could this be the reason why the United Nations refuses to intervene in various genocides and mass depopulation? A hundred million Africans swimming across the Med? It is more likely that indigenous people will adapt to the local conditions rather than migrate. Considering the advances those “evil” Israelis have made in the areas of food, water, medicine, and sanitation in desert areas, it is more likely that people will adapt.]

The crucial point is to put the problem of biological extinctions in a social context, he said. “That gives us a far better opportunity of working out what we need to in the near future. We have to act quickly, however.”

[OCS: Other than the call for urgency, what does this bafflegab really means as the sentence involving “social context” is nonsensical and has little or nothing to do with science or survival.]

Ehrlich agreed: “If you look at the figures, it is clear that to support today’s world population sustainably – and I emphasise the word sustainably – you would require another half a planet to provide us with those resources. However, if everyone consumed resources at the US level – which is what the world aspires to – you will need another four or five Earths.

We are wrecking our planet’s life support systems. We have the capacity to stop that. The trouble is that the danger does not seem obvious to most people, and that is something we must put right.”

[OCS: Scientifically speaking, the Earth’s biosphere is a self-sustaining, self-regulating feedback system that will do as it pleases, regardless of man’s puny efforts to alter planetary conditions. A mass die-off scenario is more credible when one considers an asteroid strike or out-of-control bacteria or viruses. Humans, like all other species, are simply one part of the equation.]

<Source: Biologists say half of all species could be extinct by end of century | Environment | The Guardian>

Bottom line …

With some scientists it is all about politics, science be damned. And, as for economists, Hayek, a Nobel Laureate, claimed that economics co-opted the language of mathematics to lend a precision and credibility that did not, in reality, exist. At some point in time, someone must standup and call bullshit on those who are seeking to curtail our freedoms in pursuing their toxic ideology which will ultimately lead to a totalitarian regime in the United States. Already we appear to have lost most of our Constitution and our freedoms are being impacted every day by unelected bureaucrats and activist judges.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell