Toronto Escorts

'Mini Ice Age' Looms As NASA Scientist Warns Lack Of Sunspots Could Bring Record Cold

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,178
2,614
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
The AAAS represents the views of their membership.
Deal with it.

But don't worry, you've got CM and Bigsleazy on your team, I'm sure their counter research will knock your socks off.

Speaking of which, is there an alternate theory you believe?
Do you really believe the world isn't warming up?
Based only on those satellite temp measurements of the atmosphere?
nazi collaborators are funding climate change projects and websites

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.




Eugenics and Climate Change
Posted on April 21, 2017

Rockefeller Brothers Fund: Eugenics and Climate Change

By Aly Nielsen

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund claims to pursue “social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world.” But its history tells a different story.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) was founded in 1940 by John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s five sons as “a vehicle by which they could share advice and research on charitable activities and coordinate their philanthropic efforts to better effect,” the RBF website states.

The fund’s “charitable activities” and “philanthropic efforts” since then have included eugenics research, population control, giving to Planned Parenthood and more recently promoting climate change alarmism and attacking fossil fuels. RBF is one of the foundations which has funded anti-ExxonMobil investigative journalism projects.

RBF founding trustee John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, took “particular interest” in Planned Parenthood in the 1940s, and helped the organization launch “special projects in African American communities.” Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who supported state regimented family planning and sterilization — RBF supported similar ideas.

In 1952, he founded the Population Council, which still exists in 2017. The RBF website whitewashes the Council by saying it exists “to address the more controversial fields of human fertility and contraceptive research.” In reality, it was RBF’s direct investment in eugenics and population control.

“When global population passed 2½ billion in the early 1950s (it is now more than 7 billion), John Rockefeller III was among those convinced that catastrophe was on the way,” Philanthropy Roundtable reported.

“He believed his family foundation bore some of the responsibility for rising numbers—because its health programs had reduced death rates in poor countries. So he convened a panel of experts for advice on blunting population growth,” Philanthropy Roundtable continued.

When the Rockefeller Foundation would not adopt overpopulation as one of its projects, John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, used RBF to found the Population Council. He was also the first president of the Population Council. The Ford Foundation also donated $2 million in the 1950s to help create the Council.

The second Council president was Frederick Osborn, a director at the American Eugenics Society. He wrote extensively on both eugenics and the environment, according to his New York Times obituary in 1981.

Today, RBF has purged its eugenicist language. It also no longer gives to Planned Parenthood or the Population Council (but the Rockefeller Foundation and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors do).

But it’s essential to recognize that the modern environmental movement grew out of an early 20th century conservationist agenda which involved white supremacy, racism and eugenics.

“It can only help to acknowledge just how many environmentalist priorities and patterns of thought came from an argument among white people, some of them bigots and racial engineers, about the character and future of a country that they were sure was theirs and expected to keep,” The New Yorker wrote in August 2015.

Climate Change, Fossil Fuel Divestment and “Sustainable Development” are all now core elements of RBF’s grantmaking decisions. In 2016, the fund gave away $28.9 million in grants.

Approximately $6.7 million of that went to Sustainable Development projects, which targeted “Public and Policymaker Awareness of Climate Change,” “Clean Energy Economy,” “Reduced Reliance on Carbon-Intensive Energy” and “International Progress on Climate Change.”

In recent years, RBF’s climate change funding enabled anti–Exxon propaganda, supported groups joining the Earth Day 2017 so-called “March for Science” and liberal, nonprofit journalism outlets like Grist and DeSmog Blog which spread climate alarmism.

The Fund does not solely give to liberal groups directly. It also has ties to other liberal foundations though its leadership. The group is governed by 17 trustees and one advisory trustee. Of those, several have ties to organizations funded by left-wing, billionaire George Soros.

Current RBF president, Stephen Heintz, was also the founding president of Demos, a liberal policy group co-founded by former President Barack Obama. Heintz also sits on the board for The American Prospect, a “progressive” Soros-funded magazine. Demos’ current president Heather McGhee is also an RBF trustee.

Wendy Gordon, a consultant for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), is also a trustee. Gordon also chairs the editorial board for NRDC’s environmental news magazine. NRDC is funded by RBF, Soros, Tom Steyer and others.

Senior research fellow Daniel Levy of the Soros-funded New America Foundation is another trustee.

http://buyingbias.org/2017/04/21/eugenics-climate-change/
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,178
2,614
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
https://www.jta.org/2009/03/13/opin...rate-complicity-created-undeniable-nazi-nexus

The Rockefeller Foundation, the philanthropic incarnation of Standard Oil, acted as a full partner with Carnegie in establishing eugenics in Germany. In the quest to perfect the master race, millions of Depression-era dollars were transmitted by Rockefeller to Hitler’s most anti-Jewish doctors. In this quest, one specimen was desired above all: twins. Rockefeller funded Hitler’s chief raceologist, Otmar Verschuer, and his insatiable twin experimentation programs. Twins, it was thought, held the secret to industrially multiplying the Aryan racial type and quickly subtracting biological undesirables.

Verschuer had an assistant, Josef Mengele. Rockefeller funding stopped during World War II, but by that time Mengele had transferred into Auschwitz to continue twin research in a monstrous fashion. Ever the eugenicist, he sent precise clinical reports weekly to Verschuer.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
47,075
8,145
113
Toronto
Tell us please, what does per capita mean??
Once you divided 120,000 by 91 countries you eliminated per capita. You had all countries at the same number of scientists.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,872
6,345
113
So in your warped sense of logic because any scientist pays a membership to the AAAS they automatically believe in AGW. You just summed up the lunacy of the left in a nutshell. Congratulations.
The vast majority must because if they rejected it they would change their organizational policy.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,872
6,345
113
Did you go to the Frankie school of mathematics? You know, the one where you graduate insolvent ;)
Sorry but I thought that when the study says that 0.2% say CO2 isn't responsible for warming plus 0.4% deny there is warming, that adds to 0.6% who reject AGW.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,872
6,345
113
nazi collaborators are funding climate change projects and websites...
Posts like this show what happens when the obsessive aspects of Autism meet a gullible personality and a lack of information.
p.s. Dr. Asperger was a devout Nazi.


Now for the logic side, do you think the people running the foundation in the 20's and 30's (when eugenics was somewhat mainstream) are still running the foundation 100 years later? It's like claiming the US government is run by slavery collaborators.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,247
6,520
113
Room 112
The AAAS represents the views of their membership.
Deal with it.

But don't worry, you've got CM and Bigsleazy on your team, I'm sure their counter research will knock your socks off.

Speaking of which, is there an alternate theory you believe?
Do you really believe the world isn't warming up?
Based only on those satellite temp measurements of the atmosphere?
I've got a hell of a lot more than those two guys on my side.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,247
6,520
113
Room 112
The vast majority must because if they rejected it they would change their organizational policy.
You do know that the AAAS covers all branch of sciences, right? As far as I know their membership has never been polled as to whether they believe that man made co2 is the primary driver of climate change. If you have information to the contrary please feel free to post it.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,949
17,949
113
You do know that the AAAS covers all branch of sciences, right?.
Yes, its not just climatologists but all scientists who back these findings.

How is your research team of bigsleazy, Phil and CM doing with their alternate theory?
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,247
6,520
113
Room 112
Sorry but I thought that when the study says that 0.2% say CO2 isn't responsible for warming plus 0.4% deny there is warming, that adds to 0.6% who reject AGW.
Do we need to go through the hypothesis yet again? The 'so called' 97% scientific consensus is based on the following statement - that humanity's burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver of Earth's warming since the mid 20th century. Does this study back up that hypothesis - yes or no?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,949
17,949
113
Do we need to go through the hypothesis yet again? The 'so called' 97% scientific consensus is based on the following statement - that humanity's burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver of Earth's warming since the mid 20th century. Does this study back up that hypothesis - yes or no?
NASA has a good page on the consensus, listing all the major scientific orgs supporting it.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
(makes the 120,000 scientist claim look small, by the way)

Check with CM, he probably has some theories about NASA being Nazis or something.

Oh, and the Atlantic has a lovely article that notes that most climate change deniers share similarities with racists in the support of their beliefs.
I'm sure you'll read it and change immediately, so here it is.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...niers-climate-change-and-racism-share/579190/

I am relatively ignorant about climate science, and about every subject matter outside my own expertise of racism and anti-racism. The ridiculousness of climate-change denial is matched by the ridiculous of asking people like me whether we believe in climate change. The ridiculousness of denials of racism is matched by the ridiculousness of asking whether people believe in the persistence of racism.

And in their ridiculous answers to ridiculous questions, denialists evince more than disbelief. They explain their disbelief using examples in their direct line of sight. They do not trust the far-flung hindsight, foresight, and bird’s-eye view of the scientist. They do not believe the distant averages, likelihoods, disparities, and sweeping histories that show the ravages of racism and climate change on society. If it is not happening within their narrow field of vision, then it is not happening. They disbelieve. They call “believing” scientific findings stupid. They call their disbelief high intelligence.

“A lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence, but we’re not necessarily such believers,” Trump said of climate change. “You look at our air and our water, and it’s right now at a record clean.”

In disbelieving the present observable realities, they certainly disbelieve future projections. If they disregard the fact that white-nationalist violence has worsened and U.S. law enforcement does not know how to stop it, will they believe that it will get even worse? If they ignore the enormous racial disparities in wealth, will they accept the projection of the Institute for Policy Studies that the median wealth of black households will redline at $0 by 2053 and that Latino wealth will redline two decades later? If they cannot see the changing climate today, will they buy the assessment of the Fourth National Climate Assessment that “with continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states”?

Instead of science, they hunt for signs.

Read: Climate change is already damaging American democracy

“Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS—Whatever happened to Global Warming?” Trump tweeted weeks ago.

“US dominates Olympics,” tweeted Bill O’Reilly after the 2016 Rio Olympics. “How can this be if we are a terrible country that persecutes minorities? Press is deceiving world about the US.”

“Who could not be moved at the sight of a major political party naming Barack Obama, an African American, as its presidential candidate?” Dinesh D’Souza asked weeks before Obama’s election. “To me, there could not be a better sign that America has left behind its racist past.”
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,247
6,520
113
Room 112
NASA has a good page on the consensus, listing all the major scientific orgs supporting it.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
(makes the 120,000 scientist claim look small, by the way)

Check with CM, he probably has some theories about NASA being Nazis or something.

Oh, and the Atlantic has a lovely article that notes that most climate change deniers share similarities with racists in the support of their beliefs.
I'm sure you'll read it and change immediately, so here it is.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...niers-climate-change-and-racism-share/579190/
I'm well aware of all these scientific societies who have signed on to the AGW position.
It should be noted that not one of those organizations has independently corroborated the IPCC findings.
Why you may ask? Too much funding on the line. And we all know it is he who controls the funding controls the message.
Wasn't it Eisenhower that said "we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
Quite the visionary he was.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,949
17,949
113
I'm well aware of all these scientific societies who have signed on to the AGW position.
It should be noted that not one of those organizations has independently corroborated the IPCC findings.
Why you may ask? Too much funding on the line.
Exxon had their own scientists who they paid to research climate change in 1977.
You'd think that the money at Exxon would have paid for research that made their products look safe, wouldn't you?
Instead, they just did the same science and came up with the same answers that the IPCC found.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

That kinda kills your argument about funding, doesn't it?

The reason why everyone corroborates the IPCC findings is because its good science.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,486
5,675
113
Maybe the right wingers should try and convince either Scheer or Bernier that Climate Change is "Fake". Otherwise, if they cast their your votes in the in coming elections, it will be for a leader that does not buy their nonsense regarding Climate Change is non-Existent!!
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,297
3,659
113
You should read the quote again and see if you can understand it.
'Cuz its clear you don't right now
Her exact words:
The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change
Frankie, you have zero credibility left. First you welched on our bet by resizing the sig so it was hardy legible.
Then you completely twisted things around by saying I welched on the bet, and then you proceeded to remove the sig altogether which wasnt part of the agreement.
And now you're claiming she didnt say what she did when its right there in the article.

You live in a fantasy world. You are either on medication or you need to get on medication.
Completely devoid from reality is what you are
 

Speirs

Member
Nov 11, 2017
178
15
18

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,949
17,949
113
Her exact words:
Frankie, you have zero credibility left. First you welched on our bet by resizing the sig so it was hardy legible.
Then you completely twisted things around by saying I welched on the bet, and then you proceeded to remove the sig altogether which wasnt part of the agreement.
And now you're claiming she didnt say what she did when its right there in the article.

You live in a fantasy world. You are either on medication or you need to get on medication.
Completely devoid from reality is what you are
You used a partial quote to intentionally misquote her.

I didn't think you'd be able to understand the full quote.
Do you really think she was making a claim that the world will end in 12 years?
Are you really that out of it?

Typical acts from a guy who managed to welch out of bet he won.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts