So when did inequality, poverty, reproductive rights, and the issue of what levels of material wealth people should be entitled to become matters of ‘science’? (It’s a rhetorical question).
As discussed previously — follow the links to the articles above — the Royal Society’s sideways step from climate alarmism to Malthusianism is also a step backwards. Before climate change became the dominant narrative of political environmentalism, the principle issues were ‘limits to growth’ and ‘the population bomb’. Those vehicles failed to give the environmentalists’ political project the profile it needed. Malthusianism was, in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, too easily rebutted. And in the dark days of the cold war, we seemed to have bigger problems to face. The end of the cold war arrived, and the brief era of optimism ended with climate change. It filled the nuclear-winter-shaped hole. But now there is widespread acknowledgement that climate change has been over-stated, the institutions which have sought to attach themselves to the issue have had to find a new story. And the new story is an old story. The Royal Society’s report is not at all ashamed of its origins in the work of Malthus…
Moving to the second definition of royal – as in “you screwed that up royally.” They should steer clear of the opinion of scientists and the soft science of politics.
Ben steps in a pile of Malthusian nonsense. What’s the statute of limitations on humoring these fanatics?
To answer the ‘rhetorical question’, ” inequality, poverty, reproductive rights, and the issue of what levels of material wealth people should be entitled to” are the issues to be used, and ‘science’ is the name of the deity (undeniable authority) to be rhetorically invoked by ‘those who want people to be controlled’.
Wonder since when science is about deciding who is entitled to certain material goods, or if anyone is entitled to any material goods at all.
You are entitled to what you can earn through the sweat of your brow. Nothing more and nothing less. Everything else is hogwash.
OMG! It’s Scientific American Syndrome! Apparently it IS communicable.
From a review of events over the past sixty-six years (2012-1946 = 66 yr), it appears that the fear of “nuclear fires” consuming Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945 compelled world leaders to immediately:
a.) Unite Nations, and in the future to
b.) Hide Information on energy that ignites “nuclear fire”
The UK’s Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, the United Nations and the Noble Prize Committee seem to have worked together to discredit reliable new information on:
1. “Natural nuclear fires” on Earth in 1956
2. “Nuclear fire” in the Sun in 1975, . . 2005
3. “Slow nuclear fires” in cold fusion in 1989
4. “Natural nuclear fires” in planetary cores
The rest of the story, as I see it, is documented here:
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-31
Since 1946, almost every major field of science has been compromised: Astronomy, astrophysics, atomic physics cosmology, climatology, nuclear, particle, planetary, and solar physics.
I encourage you all to respond there so we can benefit from the diversity of opinions.
Thanks to real scientists, skeptics like you,
All is well today,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/