Bill Ryerson – Global Population Speakout


Victoria Serda wrote:
Best ways to address population overgrowth:

Education of women, better health care & relief of poverty, all of which have been proven to slow and eventually reverse population growth, as well as being ethically and socially acceptable in any case.

Genocide should never be tolerated.

Victoria

.

And if that doesn’t work? How do you get to “sustainable population”? – vaccines, sterilization, tax on children or………..
The C02 scam is being used to vilify the human race.
“Carbon emitters” is being used to describe humans.

If you have not read Cloak of Green or the Green Agenda (top of blog) – please take the time. Watch Agenda 21 – last video on sidebar, tell me the information is incorrect.

PS- still waiting for you to agree to a debate.
Invite those you blindly follow ie: Bill Ryerson, Suzuki, Gore or anyone one else of your choosing.
Let’s get this out in the open.

You win the debate, I will personally become a promoter of your mantra.

You lose – you denounce the scam for what it is – environmentalism/sustainability, used as a front for eugenics/population reduction, the removal of individual rights and the sovereignty of our nation and its people.

Victoria, you obviously have a great deal of energy and conviction – please consider using it for your country, not against it.

Waiting for your invite to debate.

Ron Stephens
Independent Huron – Bruce
519-396-1958

Bill Ryerson wrote:

On March 26, there was posted on your site (http://kincardine.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/tim-hortons-endorses-earth-hour/) an article entitled “Tim Hortons Endorses Earth Hour” which defamed our Global Population Speak Out program as a “Eugenics Society.”

No support was provided for the assertion, and it is false, absolutely false.  Neither the Global Population Speak Out program, nor the Population Institute which sponsored it, condones, supports, is sympathetic to, or in any way promotes eugenics.

A common definition of eugenics is the scientific study and practice of selective breeding as applied to human beings.  Another definition describes eugenics as any one of a number of social and or political movements aiming to achieve certain goals as they pertain to human genotype and/or phenotype.  In contrast, the mission statement for the Population Institute under our Section 501(c)(3) status recognized by the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America is “to promote voluntary family planning and reproductive health services and increase awareness of the social, economic, and environmental consequences of rapid population growth.”  Eugenics is a reprehensible set of beliefs that is wholly unrelated to the goals of the Population Institute or the activities of its Global Population Speak Out program.

To avoid legal action, we request that you immediately retract the defamatory language regarding the Population Institute’s Global Population Speak Out program, specifically the language falsely and libelously characterizing the program as a “Eugenics Society.”  We believe this step is required by your contractual obligation with WordPress.com and as a matter of libel law.

Sincerely,

William N. Ryerson
President
Population Institute

107 Second Street

Washington, DC 20002

Sir:

Eugenics, or massive population reduction, we both know what the aim of the environmental movement is.
If your desire is to have  the wording changed from Eugenics to “massive population reduction” – we may be able to accommodate you and your group. We both know we are speaking of the same end goal, regardless of the words used to describe it.

Legal threats are a serious matter!

I will be passing this email on to my Lawyer.

Quote from you-

“In 1990, Prince Philip of the United Kingdom stated in a speech at the U.N.:

The population explosion, sustained by human science and technology, is causing almost insolvable problems for future generations. It is responsible for the degradation of the environment through the pollution of the air and the water; it is consuming essential as well as non-essential resources at a rate that cannot be sustained. Above all, it is condemning thousands of our fellow living organisms to extinction.

In February 1992, the presidents of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society issued a joint statement on population growth and resource consumption that included the following sentence:

If current predictions of population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity on the planet remain unchanged, science and technology may not be able to prevent irreversible degradation of the environment or continued poverty for much of the world.”

http://www.mediamonitors.net/ryerson1.html

Bill Ryerson is also on the advisory council of the OPT (Optimum Population Trust)

Mr Ryerson, please read the words of Prince Philip and his co-conspiritors, then explain the problem you have with the video.
https://canadiantruths.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/word-of-the-day/

Better still –
pick up the phone and lets talk

Ron Stephens
519-396-1958

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Bill Ryerson – Global Population Speakout

  1. Re: “THE BAD NEWS IS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, AND IT IS GETTING WORSE.

    Sir: As a researcher of some 35 yrs I’m dismayed by your comment which promotes depopulation and the MMGW fraud.
    The mantra has been for decades and continues today- reduction of C02 by 80% is required to save the planet, which coincides with the want to depopulate by the same 80%.

    This logic can be attributed to the CoR/Rockefeller which is a creator of false crisis and stated “we came up with the idea” and “therefore man is the enemy”

    Look at Gores MMGW “hockey stick” and the graph on population- there’s the “hockey stick” again. Surprise! MMGW is a fraudulent vehicle being used to move World gov. and depopulation forward.

    Sir, you and your group and thousands like it are charlatans who make their living pushing the falsities of MMGW.

    Not convinced?

    This is a talk I gave explaining the fraud of renewable energy and the connections to the fraud of MMGW leading to World gov. via the UN

    http://wp.me/p22lT-VE Part 2 and you may wish to watch the last few minutes of Part 1

    If you are so hell-bent on depopulation I suggest you take your lead from someone like Jim Jones and drink your own Kool-Aid!

  2. THE BAD NEWS IS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, AND IT IS GETTING WORSE.
    THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT USING A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, THEY OBLIGATED ALL NATIONS TO RELEASE ALL DATA TO GET TO THE BOTTOM ABOUT : IS GLOBAL WARMING A NATURAL PHENOMENON , THAT HAS TAKEN PALCE THROUGHOUT THE MILLENIA, OR IS IT CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES.
    THEY HAD TO FORCE ALL NATIONS TO OPEN ALL CLIMATE RECORDS, TO CLEAR ONCE AND FOR ALL IF climategate HAD ANY BASIS.
    THERE WAS NO BASIS, JUST MANIUPLATION OF PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THERE WAS A SCANDAL, TO TORPEDOE THE cOPENHAGEN ACCORD.
    DUE TO THIS, THINGS ARE GETTING MUCH WORSE, AND IF WE DO NOTHING, EXTINCTION IS IN THE AGENDAY. ( SORRY)
    now what?

    Science backed :
    Professor Phil Jones, CRU director at the time of the “ClimateGate” affair and the scientist most often vilified in connection with it, emerges as someone badly treated during the months of acrimony that seared the synapses of the World Wide Web.
    “We’re not pointing our fingers at Phil Jones or any other named individual, because as the recommendations of the two inquiries have suggested, they were operating in a world that was not used to this kind of process of disclosure,” said Mr Miller.
    The university has already implemented recommendations from the reviews, including setting up new procedures for dealing with FoI requests.
    “UEA notes the Select Committee’s conclusion that the two reviews which, along with at least two other independent reports, exonerated our scientists of any wrongdoing, produced ‘clear and sensible’ recommendations, many of which we have already implemented,” the university said in a statement.
    “We particularly welcome the committee’s call for urgent resolution of how the Freedom of Information Act should be applied to scientific research, as this remains a grey area – and its view that it is time to move on.”
    But Andrew Montfort, a climate “sceptic” who wrote a report on the inquiries for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, chaired by Lord Lawson, said the public did not yet know whether science from CRU could be trusted.
    “[Moving on] may be what suits most politicians, but the public deserve to know the truth,” he said.
    “The committee have turned a blind eye to the abundant evidence of wrongdoing at UEA and in the ‘ClimateGate’ inquiries.”
    However, Mr Miller said further inquiries were not indicated: instead, it was time to implement the recommended changes and improve the practices of climate science as much as possible.
    The report noted without demur the evidence put by UK Chief Scientific Adviser Sir John Beddington to the effect that “the general issues on overall global temperature, on sea level and so on, are all pretty unequivocal”.
    In addition to the Oxburgh and Muir Russell inquiries, a review by the previous incarnation of the Science and Technology Committee in March last year also found nothing to criticise in CRU’s scientific output.
    And other recent reviews of climate science, including one by the Dutch government and one by the InterAcademy Council (an international network of science academies) also concluded that recent controversies had done nothing to challenge the prevailing view of human-induced climate change.

    More on This Story
    Related stories
    Climate unit ‘did not hide data’ 07 JULY 2010, SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT ‘No malpractice’ by climate unit 14 APRIL 2010, SCI/TECH
    Q&A: Professor Phil Jones 13 FEBRUARY 2010, SCI/TECH
    UK climate unit’s e-mails hacked 20 NOVEMBER 2009, SCI/TECH
    Related Internet links
    Science and Technology Committee
    Climatic Research Unit
    Conclusions of Oxburgh review
    Muir Russell inquiry

    As a Physician while reading your ranting against Bill Reason, the thought that to date, there are still people who believe the world is flat crossed my mind.

    Then, I know enough psychology to realize that the thought that humanity will become extinct within 100- 200 years unless we address global warming and overpopulation, is indeed a thought that can be so overwhelming.

    I see that fof you it is easier to block it and deny it. This is a normal pehnomenon when emotions are involved.

    The 5 steps of mourning.
    A) Denial
    b) Anger
    b) Bargain, Beg, negotiate
    c) Depression
    d) Acceptance

    It is understandable, but it has been a while since this information is common knowledge, so kindly, forgive us for bringing you the bad news. I know how it is for patients when one have to say their loved one has expired. There is nothing we can do but tell you the truth, and as responsible physicians, we must tell the truth.

  3. Bill Ryerson wrote:
    Population Institute does not have a position favoring massive population reduction. Instead, the organization favors bringing population into balance with natural resources.

    Bill-
    What is the “balance” number you wish to achieve? There is no way to reduce the population in time to “save the planet” using planned parenthood.

    So, what’s the answer? Sterilization, vaccines or some other method.

    I know the OPT would like to see less than 30 million in Britain
    That’s a lot of carbon emitters! But, that still won’t bring us into the proper balance, will it.

    Georgia Guidestones states, balance with nature requires a population of not more than 500 million.

    Is that a reasonable target? If not, why not?

    Who decides the right balance – your group, the OPT, the UN?

    Man is not the enemy!

    Just some men – like those who want to play God.

    You forgot to explain the problem you have with the video.
    Please read the words of Prince Philip and his co-conspirators, then explain the problem you have with the video.
    http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/word-of-the-day/

    I talked to Tim Hortons Head office before I made the video – No complaints from their end.

    If you wish to talk, you have my number.

  4. “…it’s relatively simple: I have researched and understood this issue for many years
    (since high school)…”

    So, can we assume she’s studied Malthus and Ehrlich then?

    Does she not realize how backwards and ludicrous her thinking seems to be?

    Oh boy.

  5. Here’s another question for her.

    What other organizations do you belong to or support?
    Do we not have a right to know?

    The last question was a rhetorical one. No, we do not have the right to know.
    As so are the times.

  6. Thought I’d share…I’m done wasting my time.

    ——————————————————————————–
    Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 21:58:28 -0400
    Subject: Re: CO2 Climate Change Debate
    From: xxxxxx
    To: xxxxxx

    Hi Frank,

    Thanks for the easy and well-mannered, respectful questions. 😉

    Answers:

    Yes.
    Education of women, better health care & relief of poverty, all of which have been proven to slow and eventually reverse population growth, as well as being ethically and socially acceptable in any case.
    A sustainable level is enough that the world’s population can sustain itself and future generations with the amount of resources needed for everyone on the planet to live with a good quality of life as well as to maintain the ecosystems as best as possible. I’m sure you realize, after your extensive reading, that it is well known that we are facing a mass extinction of species around the globe as well.

    Please note: I do believe that having so many people on the planet is affecting global warming and climate change…ah hem…because they are both happening and accelerated by humans (scientists around the world agreed to a 99% probability), and perhaps you should read more in order to understand the difference between the terms.

    It is also normal to call people ‘deniers’ when they are debating something that is accepted around the globe as a fact, eg. Human-accelerated climate change, and I have no problem saying any of this with a straight face. I wouldn’t want to be in your position in the future where you’re telling kids that you (sadly) spent time working against what needs to be done to make this world a better place for their generation.

    Last thing, I don’t get what the Eugenics reference means…? Any well-educated person on this planet knows that our population is exploding and we need to get it under control somehow, and there are humane and ethical ways to do it. It only takes common sense to realize that we live on a finite world, and we need to live within our means.

    No matter how much you and others can try to make me look like I’m part of a conspiracy, it’s relatively simple: I have researched and understood this issue for many years (since high school, in fact), and although a lot of people have been brainwashed by the prevalent anti-global warming spin doctors (who are well documented), I don’t give any credence to that position and it’s unlikely I ever will. Every new theory I hear, I research and consider, but I’ve yet to find one argument from a ‘denier’ that makes sense to me.

    Victoria

    On 4/5/10 12:50 PM, “xxxxxx> wrote:

    I have three questions for you, if I may:

    (1) Do you support the above statement?
    (2) If so, can you please provide some examples of what you believe to be “humane” population reduction methods?
    (3) If so, what do you believe to be a “sustainable level”?


    Victoria Serda
    http://www.victoriaserda.ca
    Office: xxx.xxx.xxxx

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s