We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Are any of these real? Count me as highly skeptical, despite whatever truthiness they may contain.Amusing too.
Just one example:
“…the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
— David Rockefeller, June, 1991, Bilderberg Conference, Baden, Germany
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
—Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, husband of Queen Elizabeth II, Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
—Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, Lead author of many IPCC reports
I have orphanages to foreclose on ... but I read the first twenty google hits for "virus" and the source of the quote is rarely given, the quote sometimes appears only in the comments, the "world wildlife federation" reference appears so many times that that it suggests the unattributed quote is just being passed around the 'net.
re rockefeller: no one actually talks or writes like that. I know the difference between pretentious BS and unintentional, badly written parody, and the quote is the latter, written by someone trying to sound like he or she thinks a rockefeller might talk.
the schneider quote is truncated, he's a PR hack, but the full quote also contains the phrase ... "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." his wikipedia article has full links to the source (in which he complains about his position being misrepresented).
The quote attributed to Schneider comes from Discover Magazine (October 1989). The quote hounded Schneider for much of his career. He tried to explain it away in a APS op-ed : http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf
He was speaking about the difficulty of communicating science in media soundbights- his exact quote:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands nd buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our work- ing to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right bal- ance is between being effective and be- ing honest. I hope that means being both.”
Schneider calims his point was the double ethical bind- I don't see any bind- if you claim to be a scientist you cannot employ the tactics of an activist.
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy ... would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
—Paul Ehrlich, "An Ecologist's Perspective on Nuclear Power", May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report
``We can and should seize upon the energy crisis as a good excuse and great opportunity for making some very fundamental changes that we should be making anyhow for other reasons.'' - Russell Train, Science 184 p. 1050, 7 June 1974
John Holdren - Obama’s Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Advisor
“Only one rational path is open to us—simultaneous de-development of the [overdeveloped countries] and semi-development of the underdeveloped countries (UDC’s), in order to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between. By de-development we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.”- John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, “Introduction,” in Holdren and Ehrlich, eds., Global Ecology, 1971, p. 3.
Holdren and Ehrlichs in Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment:
“Indeed it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
In Ecoscience- Holdren dreams of the establishment of a “Planetary Regime” that “could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.” Holdren saw giving up national sovereignty as the first step whereby “security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where fractionalsim seems, if anything to be increasing. The first step necessarily in partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
None of them show up at snopes, pro or con. This suggests they are invented.
All are of course plausible, or they could not circulate. But one's opponents seldom oblige by making statements that are that clean, even if they really might agree with the sentiment expressed. It is more usual that it is an exaggeration of their POV, which we would love to attribute to them if we could,
Assistant VIllage Idiot
schneider's quote was selectively edited, but he did say it.