Thursday, June 27, 2013
40th Anniversary of Limits to Growth "Environmentalist" Fraud and How the BBC LIes and Censors in the Fascist Cause
Lets all celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Limits to Growth paper and the massive worldwide PR campaign launched to promote its tale of global catastrophe if we don't embrace Luddism:
The authors of The Limits to Growth predicted that before 2013, the world would have run out of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc. Oil and natural gas were to run out in 1990 and 1992, respectively; today, reserves of both are larger than they were in 1970, although we consume dramatically more. Within the past six years, shale gas alone has doubled potential gas resources in the United States and halved the price.
From Next Big Future
It is, of course, possible that some eco-fascist scare story will someday turn out to be more truthful but with the trend so far being hundreds of catastrophe stories proving to be untrue (I am open to and have previously asked for evidence from any Green of any significant scare story that turned out to be true) and none truthful, that the only possible honest default position must be that any Green is lying any time they speak.
I have previously arithmetically calculated the BBC level of honesty by calculating the proportion of times the BBC broadcast UKIP spokespersons to Greens (less than 1 in 10) to the proportion of support shown in polls (8+ to 1 for UKIP) and multiplying them - 1/80th possibly honest or 98.7% totalitarian fascist.
However I made no account for the sort of coverage. Since most interviews with UKIP contain (often start with) a variant of "some people say you are racist" - a question since it is entirely unspecific about both who and why, is designed to be essentially unanswerable.
It strikes me that if the BBC equally started interviews with Green spokesmen by asking "some people say, with evidence, that the green movement has been responsible for more deaths than Hitler and Stalin combined" (the DDT ban alone has increased malaria deaths from 52,000 a year to 1 1/2 million annually for nearly 60 years) that would allow the BBC to claim to be balanced withing that 1.13%.
[ Of course the same applies to interviews with the Labour/Conservative and "LibDem" parties where the question would be "some people have produced evidence that your party are guilty of illegal war, war crimes, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, genocide, the sexual enslavement of children and the dissection of thousands of living people to steal their body organs for western hospitals, selected and arrested because of their race.]
That would certainly allow the BBC to claim not to be mathematically 100% corrupt and if I find it has ever happened I will let you know.
The authors of The Limits to Growth predicted that before 2013, the world would have run out of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc. Oil and natural gas were to run out in 1990 and 1992, respectively; today, reserves of both are larger than they were in 1970, although we consume dramatically more. Within the past six years, shale gas alone has doubled potential gas resources in the United States and halved the price.
From Next Big Future
It is, of course, possible that some eco-fascist scare story will someday turn out to be more truthful but with the trend so far being hundreds of catastrophe stories proving to be untrue (I am open to and have previously asked for evidence from any Green of any significant scare story that turned out to be true) and none truthful, that the only possible honest default position must be that any Green is lying any time they speak.
I have previously arithmetically calculated the BBC level of honesty by calculating the proportion of times the BBC broadcast UKIP spokespersons to Greens (less than 1 in 10) to the proportion of support shown in polls (8+ to 1 for UKIP) and multiplying them - 1/80th possibly honest or 98.7% totalitarian fascist.
However I made no account for the sort of coverage. Since most interviews with UKIP contain (often start with) a variant of "some people say you are racist" - a question since it is entirely unspecific about both who and why, is designed to be essentially unanswerable.
It strikes me that if the BBC equally started interviews with Green spokesmen by asking "some people say, with evidence, that the green movement has been responsible for more deaths than Hitler and Stalin combined" (the DDT ban alone has increased malaria deaths from 52,000 a year to 1 1/2 million annually for nearly 60 years) that would allow the BBC to claim to be balanced withing that 1.13%.
[ Of course the same applies to interviews with the Labour/Conservative and "LibDem" parties where the question would be "some people have produced evidence that your party are guilty of illegal war, war crimes, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, genocide, the sexual enslavement of children and the dissection of thousands of living people to steal their body organs for western hospitals, selected and arrested because of their race.]
That would certainly allow the BBC to claim not to be mathematically 100% corrupt and if I find it has ever happened I will let you know.
Labels: BBC, eco-fascism, hobgoblins
