Human Beings the “AIDS of the Earth”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/may/07050812

I once alleged that the environmental movement considered the human species to be a "cancer on the earth".  I was called out for that statement, yet I did not back down.  While, it was fully my opinion, it was based on observed actions, words and deeds of the environmental movement.  Turns out, I was wrong.  it was not my opinion, it is a fact.  Indeed, it is Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, that has so dubbed man, not only the "AIDS"  (equating man to a virus), but a cancer as well.

“Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach,”

As you see, from his words, came my opinion - although at the time I had not read the man.  The debate on Anthropogenic Global Warming Global Climate Change Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Global Climate Disruption is not about any effect man may or may not have on the changing climate.  No, the proponents have already decided to get rid of man and turn the earth into a garden of Eden.  All ills of the planet are man's fault, and all cures are the eradication of Man.  They want to deprive you of energy (it produces CO2), food (animals produce methane), shelter (they retain heat and use energy), transportation, and clothing (again, it produces both CO2 and methane).  So in effect, they seek to remove all means of man's means of sustaining life.  They are not "anti-poor" as some think (since their policies would tax them out of existence), but simply anti-people.

The irony is that there are so many sheep walking about calling for their own demise - who are just not smart enough to realize they can help their masters with their own death.  For the end means they will be euthanized as well.  Yes, the climate changes, but as yet, no one has even provided any proof it is due to man (as the climate has been changing since the earth was formed).  Man makes his environment more conducive to his progeny, but the Climate Alarmist would have us undo this and simply eradicate man to fix something that has yet to be shown to be a problem.  You cannot throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, but it appears you sure can get man to march off cliffs like lemmings.

37,899 views 32 replies
Reply #1 Top

I have to agree with some that man is an awful steward of the earth. I am not really on the global warming issue but over fishing and polluting the oceans, deforestation and mismanaging eco systems, capitalisms constant reductions in the quality of goods to keep the machine running and filling landfills more and more. 

Corruption and greed will turn the earth into one big land fill with tiny pockets of green zones for the elite. There is room for all of us if we can learn to manage our resources around good for the planet rather than good for the few. Fresh water will soon be the new precious commodity which wars will be fought over.

Check out Bill Gates quote on using vaccines to depopulate the earth. 

Bill Gates Wants Depopulation Through Vaccines and Health Care
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723

Reply #2 Top

Quoting myfist0, reply 1
Corruption and greed will turn the earth into one big land fill with tiny pockets of green zones for the elite.

If allowed to run unchecked, probably.  However, that is not the case.  Love Canal burned in 1970. It is drinkable now.  But there has to be a balance (or if you go with Watson, I guess not - just kill all the people).  You cannot decide to push society back to the stone age - that defeats the purpose (when an old man was 30, and infant mortality was measured in double digits, not fractions).

That being said, Bill gates is sure going about his views funny.  He gave billions to extend the life of people.  Why?  If he wants to get rid of them.  But that is because he does only one thing well - marketing.  Microsoft "invented" one thing.  GW Basic.  Everything else it bought.  So if I want to sell my software, I go to Bill Gates.  If I want answers to questions, I go somewhere else.

And if I want a better world for my children, I do not go to Mr. Eugenics for help.  The funny thing about most people is they want to live, and calling them a cancer is not going to get their support.

Reply #3 Top

Quoting myfist0, reply 1
I have to agree with some that man is an awful steward of the earth.

Are you aware that whales and dolphin now routinely swim in New York Harbor?

Reply #4 Top

Quoting Daiwa, reply 3
Are you aware that whales and dolphin now routinely swim in New York Harbor?

Don't blame the whales and Dolphins - they are unaware of the residents of land. ;)

Reply #5 Top

Phooey.  I believe in the Bible...Earth was created for man, not the other way around...there is sufficient in the earth for man...we (man) could go hog wild and detune every car and run them in too low a gear and smoke up every major city in the world and the earth would survive it.  All those cars would not dump as much pollutants into the air as one volcano in Iceland did in a day...and it got cleaned up...Mt Saint Helens left ash all across the USA and it got cleaned up...nature dumps more oil into the Gulf of Mexico than BP did...which, by the way, is really hard to find nowdays (the oil, not BP)...and the beat goes on...man has always had an inflated view of his own importance...cancer?...AIDS?...more like a pimple on the Earth's butt.

Reply #6 Top

Quoting Big, reply 5
which, by the way, is really hard to find nowdays (the oil, not BP).

Actually both are. ;)

But point taken.  And I agree.  We are stewards, not a cancer.

Reply #7 Top

Quoting Big, reply 5
nature dumps more oil into the Gulf of Mexico than BP did...which, by the way, is really hard to find nowdays (the oil, not BP)

I would like to know where you get this idea. 
The oil is NOT GONE, they used a chemical to make it sink to the bottom but I guess out of sight is out of mind. 

Quoting Dr, reply 2
Love Canal burned in 1970. It is drinkable now. 

Labour cost is not the only reason companies are moving overseas, environmental laws are a large cost and headache to these companies that have polluted for years. So lets move this factory somewhere in the third world and poison all the peasants there. Out of sight is out of mind again.

Quoting Dr, reply 2
You cannot decide to push society back to the stone age - that defeats the purpose

I would never suggest that rather use technology for the better of all man. It seems to me that now technology is only used to make the few more powerful and the majority have to work more for less. 

Reply #8 Top

I won't do the research for you that you apparently are not inclined to do yourself, if you don't like my assertion, prove it wrong...the oil that is at the bottom of the ocean and Gulf of Mexico will be dissipated naturally by biological communities that will form around it...as they do around the thousands of natural fissures throughout the world.  Again, man thinking he has some major impact on the earth is pure hubris.

Reply #9 Top

Quoting Big, reply 8
if you don't like my assertion, prove it wrong

LOL. I did research it and you are completely wrong. I also dont need sources to tell when something smells like BS that it is BS.

Reply #10 Top

No, the proponents have already decided to get rid of man and turn the earth into a garden of Eden. All ills of the planet are man's fault, and all cures are the eradication of Man.

Oh ya, in their minds we've become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Humans and human happiness and fecundity isn't as important as the planet.

 

 

They want to deprive you of energy (it produces CO2), food (animals produce methane), shelter (they retain heat and use energy), transportation, and clothing (again, it produces both CO2 and methane). So in effect, they seek to remove all means of man's means of sustaining life. They are not "anti-poor" as some think (since their policies would tax them out of existence), but simply anti-people.

You're describing the environmental movement's religion...global Green Religion.

 

Quoting Big, reply 5
Phooey. I believe in the Bible...Earth was created for man, not the other way around...there is sufficient in the earth for man...we (man) could go hog wild and detune every car and run them in too low a gear and smoke up every major city in the world and the earth would survive it. All those cars would not dump as much pollutants into the air as one volcano in Iceland did in a day...and it got cleaned up...Mt Saint Helens left ash all across the USA and it got cleaned up...nature dumps more oil into the Gulf of Mexico than BP did...which, by the way, is really hard to find nowdays (the oil, not BP)...and the beat goes on...man has always had an inflated view of his own importance...cancer?...AIDS?...more like a pimple on the Earth's butt.

I'm with you on this. Man is the crown jewel of Creation but you know the new, "enlightened" people steeped in the Green Religion believe this is obsolete and must be discarded. They believe the heresy that plants and animals are of equal value to humans, with equal rights!

 

Quoting Big, reply 5
nature dumps more oil into the Gulf of Mexico than BP did..

Quoting myfist0, reply 7
I would like to know where you get this idea.

It's true. Check this out.

http://www.livescience.com/5422-natural-oil-spills-surprising-amount-seeps-sea.html 

 

 

Reply #11 Top

I'm sorry and frustrated about the confused way my comment appeared. I tried to edit it but that didn't work.

Reply #12 Top

------

 

 

 

Reply #13 Top

 

 

Quoting myfist0, reply 1
Check out Bill Gates quote on using vaccines to depopulate the earth.

Bill Gates Wants Depopulation Through Vaccines and Health Care
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723

I just read the link and now understand better why myfist0 posted this.

All I can say is the Pope warned us that we live in a culture of death. And in this culture, the destruction of people, (depopulation) through vaccines and abortion goes hand in hand with environmental extremism. 

 

Reply #14 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 10
It's true. Check this out.

http://www.livescience.com/5422-natural-oil-spills-surprising-amount-seeps-sea.html 

That's why I like to see the sources. Notice they quote a "recent study" that they did not name so we can only take them at there word and it was paid for by the Seaver Institute who's benefactor was Richard Seaver, Oil Drilling Billionaire. 

Also since when is an article written by staff without names? "LiveScience Staff"?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6552 shows that the dose is the poison and actually lists the names of the people that supply the information so you can check their credentials. 

The Deepwater Horizon site releases 3 to 12 times the oil per day compared to that released by natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico. By May 30, the Deepwater Horizon site had released between 468,000 and 741,000 barrels of oil, compared to 60,000 to 150,000 barrels from natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico over the same 39 day period.

 

 

Reply #15 Top

Quoting Big, reply 8
I won't do the research for you that you apparently are not inclined to do yourself, if you don't like my assertion, prove it wrong...the oil that is at the bottom of the ocean and Gulf of Mexico will be dissipated naturally by biological communities that will form around it...as they do around the thousands of natural fissures throughout the world.  Again, man thinking he has some major impact on the earth is pure hubris.

This is true scientific fact.  

 

Quoting myfist0, reply 14
That's why I like to see the sources. Notice they quote a "recent study" that they did not name so we can only take them at there word and it was paid for by the Seaver Institute who's benefactor was Richard Seaver, Oil Drilling Billionaire. 

Also since when is an article written by staff without names? "LiveScience Staff"?

Myfist0, 

Not accepting the sources, the study or who paid for it doesn't prove BFD's claim wrong. 

Take then the study of Geology. What has Geology given us in regard to natural oil seepage from the ocean's floor? 

Truth is geologists have located natural oil resevoirs containing billions of barrels of oil under the sea.  The oil seepage is from those. 

Here is a geologic explanation of how crude oil is formed...

 

http://electronicsjmbh.blogspot.com/2011/03/formation-process-of-crude-oil.html 

......................................

The only argument I have with these 2 links I provided is that they are in lockstep with Evolution worldview which claims that coal, oil and methane formed in the sea over millions of years.

.....................................................

 

Oil Forming Under Ocean Now

No sooner had the discovery of ongoing natural formation of petroleum been published in the journal Nature,6 than The Australian Financial Review of February 2, 1982 carried an article by Walter Sullivan of The New York Times under the heading ‘Natural oil refinery found under ocean’. The report indicated that

‘The oil is being formed from the unusually rapid breakdown of organic debris by extraordinarily extensive heat flowing through the sediments, offering scientists a singular opportunity to see how petroleum is formed....Ordinarily oil has been thought to form over millions of years whereas in this instance the process is probably occurring in thousands of years.... The activity is not only manufacturing petroleum at relatively high speed but also, by application of volcanic heat, breaking it down into the constituents of gasoline and other petroleum products as in a refinery.’

Map Of the Area
Click image to enlarge.

Figure 1. The Location of the Guaymas Basin in the Gulf of California.

This ‘natural refinery under the ocean’ is found under the waters of the Gulf of California, in an area known as the Guaymas Basin (see Fig. 1). Through this basin is a series of long deep fractures that link volcanoes of the undersea ridge known as the East Pacific Rise with the San Andreas fault system that runs northwards across California. The basin consists of two rift valleys (flat-bottomed valleys bounded by steep cliffs along fault lines), which are filled with 500 metre thick layers of sediments consisting of diatomaceous ooze (made up of the opal-like ‘shells’ of diatoms, single-celled aquatic plants related to algae) and silty mud washed from the nearby land.

 

Along these fractures through the sediments in the basin flows boiling hot water at temperatures above 200°C, the result of deep-seated volcanic activity below the basin. These hot waters (hydrothermal fluids) discharging through the sediments on the ocean floor have been investigated by deep sea divers in mini-submarines.

The hydrothermal activity on the ocean floor releases discrete oil globules (up to 1–2 centimetres in diameter), which are discharged into hydrothermal the ocean water with the hydrothermal fluids.7 Disturbance of the surface layers of the sediments on the ocean bottom also releases oil globules.

Correct measurement of the oil flow rate at these sites has so far not been feasible, but the in situ collection of oil globules has shown that the gas/oil ratio is approximately 5:1. Large mounds of volcanic sinter (solids coalesced by heating) form via precipitation around the vents and spread out in a blanket across the ocean floor for a distance of 25 metres. These sinter deposits consist of clays mixed with massive amounts of metal sulphide minerals, together with other hydrothermal minerals such as barite (barium sulphate) and talc.

The remains of unusual tubeworms that frequent the seawaters around these mounds are also mixed in with the sinter deposits. Thus the organic matter content of these sinter deposits in the mounds approaches 24%.8

The hydrothermal oil from the Guaymas Basin is similar to reservoir crude oils.9 Selected hydrocarbon ratios of the vapour phase are similar to those of the gasoline fraction of typical crude oils, while the general distribution pattern of light volatile hydrocarbons resembles that of crude oils (see Table of analyses) . The elemental composition is within the normal ranges of typical crude oils, while contents of some of the significant organic components, and their distribution, are well within the range of normal crude oils. Other key analytical techniques on the oil give results that are compatible with a predominantly bacterial/algal origin of the organic matter that is the source of the oil and gas.10

This oil and gas has probably formed by the action of hydrothermal processes on the organic matter within the diatomaceous ooze layers in the basin. Of crucial significance is the radiocarbon (C14 ) dating of the oil. Samples have yielded ages between 4,200 and 4,900 years, with uncertainties in the range 50?190 years.11 Thus, the time-temperature conversion of the sedimentary organic matter to hydrothermal petroleum has taken place over a very short geological time-scale (less than 5,000 years) and has occurred under relatively mild temperature conditions.

It is significant also that the temperature conditions in these hydrothermal fluids, of up to and exceeding 315 °C, are similar to the ideal temperatures for oil and gas generation in the previously described Australian laboratory experiments.12 Figure 2a illustrates the oil generation system operating in the Guaymas Basin, while Figure 2b shows how this process could be applied in a closed sedimentary basin to the hydrothermal generation of typical oil and gas deposits.

One potential scenario for oil formation
Click image to enlarge.

 

 

References

  1. Saxby, J. D. and Riley, K. W., 1984. Petroleum generation by laboratory-scaled pyrolysis over six years simulating conditions in a subsiding basin. Nature, vol. 308, pp. 177–179.
  2. Saxby, J. D., Bennett, A.J.R., Corcoran, J.F., Lambert, D.E. and Riley, K.W., 1986. Petroleum generation: simulation over six years of hydrocarbon formation from torbanite and brown coal in a subsiding basin. Organic Geochemistry, vol. 9(2), pp. 69–81. 
  3. Saxby and Riley, ref. 1, p. 178. 
  4. Saxby et al., ref. 2, p. 80. 
  5. Saxby and Riley, ref. 1, p. 178. 
  6. Simonelt, B.R.T. and Lonsdale, P.F., 1982. hydrothermal petroleum in mineralized mounds at the seabed of Guaymas Basin. Nature, vol. 295, pp. 198–212. 
  7. Didyk, B.M. and Simoneit, B.R.T., 1989, hydrothermal oil of Guaymas Basin and implications for petroleum formation mechanisms. Nature, vol. 342, pp. 65–69. 
  8. Didyk and Simoneit, ref. 7, p. 65. 
  9. Didyk and Simoneit, ref. 7, p. 66. 
  10. Didyk and Simoneit, ref. 7, p. 66. 
  11. Peter, J.M., Kawka, O. E., Scott, S. D. and Simoneit, B.R.T., 1988, Third Chemistry Congress of North America. Toronto, abstract GEOC 036.
  12. Saxby et al., ref. 1 and ref. 2. 
  13. Didyk and Simoneit, ref. 7, p. 69. 
  14. Didyk and Simoneit, ref. 7, p. 69. 
Reply #16 Top

Quoting myfist0, reply 7
I would like to know where you get this idea.
The oil is NOT GONE, they used a chemical to make it sink to the bottom but I guess out of sight is out of mind.

No, nature took care of it itself.  Did you not read about the petroleum eating bacteria?  Man did not make it (but he is trying to duplicate it).  Plus is simply breaks down and sinks as well.

Quoting myfist0, reply 7
Labour cost is not the only reason companies are moving overseas, environmental laws are a large cost and headache to these companies that have polluted for years. So lets move this factory somewhere in the third world and poison all the peasants there. Out of sight is out of mind again.

I do not argue that point.  The pendulum has swung too far to one side.  It is long past time for sanity to be restored, but I do not hold out much hope given that congress is in the enviro wackos pocket.

Quoting myfist0, reply 7
It seems to me that now technology is only used to make the few more powerful and the majority have to work more for less.

Got TVs?  Flat screens even?  how about a computer or 2?  Computerized car?  No, it is not being used exclusively for the rich and powerful.  98% of the "poor" in America own at least one TV.  Digital even.  They are not rich.

Reply #17 Top

Quoting myfist0, reply 9

Quoting Big Fat Daddy, reply 8 if you don't like my assertion, prove it wrong

LOL. I did research it and you are completely wrong. I also dont need sources to tell when something smells like BS that it is BS.

Not according to most scientific papers published on the issue. Interesting reads.  Some are behind paywalls however.

Reply #18 Top

On this topic,  one of our presidential candidates, Rick Santorum, said  it's "patently absurd" that man is responsible for climate change.

Also Pope Benedict said that Human Ecology is 1st Priority

Work for Environment Should Emphasize Importance of Humanity

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 11, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI says the "groaning of creation" is being caused in part by men's pride, but work for the environment must give first priority to "human ecology."

The Pope said this in a message to the bishops of Brazil in support of their annual Lenten campaign. This year the campaign is focused on fraternity and life on the planet.

The Feb. 16 message, addressed to the president of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil, Archbishop Geraldo Lyrio Rocha of Mariana, said the first step for establishing a correct relationship with the world is recognizing our condition as creatures.

"[M]an is not God, but his image," the Holy Father affirmed, "that is why he must try to be more sensitive to the presence of God in what surrounds him: in all creatures and, especially, in the human person in whom there is a certain epiphany of God."

The Pope proposed that man's respect for creatures hinges on a "full sense of life," lest he be led "to contempt for himself and for what surrounds him."

"That is why the first ecology that must be defended is 'human ecology,'" Benedict XVI stated. "That is, without a clear defense of human life, from its conception to its natural death, without a defense of the family based on marriage between a man and a woman, without a real defense of those who are excluded and marginalized by society, without forgetting in this context those who lose everything, victims of natural disasters, there can never be talk of a genuine defense of the environment."

The Pope concluded with the reminder that man's duty to care for the environment is "an imperative that stems from the awareness that God entrusts his creation to man, not so that he can exercise over it an arbitrary dominion, but to preserve and care for it, as a son takes care of his father's inheritance."

--- --- ---

 

Reply #19 Top

Quoting Dr, reply 17
Quoting Big Fat Daddy, reply 8 if you don't like my assertion, prove it wrongLOL. I did research it and you are completely wrong. I also dont need sources to tell when something smells like BS that it is BS.

Saying "Ninny ninny booboo" is not research.  There is plenty of scientific (not political opinion) information on this subject, lots of it has been cited already.  Maybe the BS you are smelling is a little closer to home than you are willing to admit.

Reply #20 Top

Quoting Big, reply 19
Saying "Ninny ninny booboo" is not research. There is plenty of scientific (not political opinion) information on this subject, lots of it has been cited already. Maybe the BS you are smelling is a little closer to home than you are willing to admit.

The new quoting system looks like I was saying and you are responding to me.  I understand the comment is directed at myFist0.

Those who claim man is destroying the world have models on their side.  Those who say man is not have history and observation on theirs.  When models do not work, they are not models, but material for the latest irwin Allen Film.

Reply #21 Top

Sorry 'bout that, Doc.  Yeah it was directed to the fellow you quoted, I should have gone farther up and quoted him directly but I's lazy.  There are no clear indications that anything man does or could do will have any lasting detrimental affect on the earth.  Sorry folks, computer models are programs created by "researchers" who have an agenda...mainly to keep the grants coming in so they can keep their jobs.  There is a better chance that we (mankind) will wipe ourselves out through some nuclear exchange or virus run amok.  And when we are gone, MamaEarth will keep on keepin' on.  Good article, Doc.

Reply #22 Top

Quoting Big, reply 21
I should have gone farther up and quoted him directly but I's lazy.

I use to do that all the time - until they changed it and I realized it was putting the name in the quote!  Oi!  Make things harder now! ;)

 

Quoting Big, reply 21
There is a better chance that we (mankind) will wipe ourselves out through some nuclear exchange or virus run amok. And when we are gone, MamaEarth will keep on keepin' on.

Once people understand that very fact, most of them will stop supporting these whackos since their sole goal is the eradication of man.  If they want that, they only have to start a nuke war.  Sure, some animals will die, but without man, they will come back stronger than ever.

 

Reply #23 Top

Quoting Big, reply 21
There is a better chance that we (mankind) will wipe ourselves out through some nuclear exchange or virus run amok. And when we are gone, MamaEarth will keep on keepin' on. Good article, Doc.

Quoting Dr, reply 22
Once people understand that very fact, most of them will stop supporting these whackos since their sole goal is the eradication of man. If they want that, they only have to start a nuke war.

C'mon you two, forget the nukes, it's all about reducing the global birthrate, stupid!

The radical environmentalists are linked arm in arm with the population controllers running the UN "we love the earth more than people" show.

Their greatest desire is to reduce human capital. 

Working together with Planned Parenthood types, they are, with our tax monies, in the business of sterilization, contraception and abortion which destroys incredible amounts of human capital, in the USA, roughly equivalent to nuking a mid size city each year.

 

Reply #24 Top

Lula:  Can't argue with that at all.

Reply #25 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 23
C'mon you two, forget the nukes, it's all about reducing the global birthrate, stupid!

No, it is about eliminating man.  A means to that end is reducing birthrates, but it is just one plank in the platform.