Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[wng]

---

So mao na akoang stand brad, kana akoang tax, dili ko ganahan i palit na ug condom brad. AW kana kung dili mo motoo ug GABA brad. Sige brad, sugdi na ninyo ug apod apod ug condom adto sa mga pobre. Tan-awon ta ug maka sustain ba inyong ambisyoso nga proyekto.

Gaba? Single pa ka? Or mas dili ka na gabaan ang di pakan-on ug tarong ang mga anak? Kung minyo na ka, makasabot ra ka. Kay kung naa na kay daghan anak (sa imo ra ni kung 3 ba na or 8 ba na) unya imong asawa di na ganahan manganak, di gyud kamogamit ug condom? Let's say anniversary ninyo unya imong in-laws ga volunteer gyud para maka vacation mo. Adto mo ug Boracay (or Paris ba kay dako man kaha ka income), unya fertile period man. Di gyud ka mogamit ug condom?

Ako innocente ra sad ko sa-una ba. Pero look at reality gyud. I would rather be surrounded by sinners without AIDS rather than sinners with AIDS. Mao na, kay di ko ka change anang sexual behavior sa mga tawo, bisan pa migo ko pa na. Maayo na lang nga wa na silay AIDS kaysa sa naa.

To make it clear to you brad. Wala ko mo ingon nga sayop ang population control brad. Pero kung ang argument nimo kay mag population control tungod kay naay overpopulation, is sayop nga argumento. Kay ang overpopulation palang daan nga issue is debatehonon kaayo, nakasabot ka brad? Mura ka ug ga-kalibanga with fever symptoms brad nga ang imong gi-tomar nga tambal kay biogesic, layo ra kaayo ang solution. Kay ang issue gyud brad is not overpopulation, but "poverty and corruption".

Para klaro sa imo, bisan mo adto ka sa doctor, patomaron ka ug paracetamol kung naa ka fever (and yes, it's good to take Biogesic for diarrhea with fever). Pa-imnon sad ka ug rehydration solution. And patomaron sad ka ug Imodium or Diatabs or whatever to cure your diarrhea. So in short, makatabang na ang uban tambal maskin di na mao ang cause. Unya ayaw inom ug gatas kay mosamot imong kalibanga maskin di na gikan sa gatas. Same here, kung pobre na, ayaw na lang tawon mo panganak ug ika-7 kay mosamot ka dako ang inyong gasto.

Inyo man gud gi relate ang number of population to poverty which is sayop nang daan. Ang Tokyo diay sa Japan, naa ba silay issue on overpopulation nga kadako anang ilang population? Wala jud kay wala man silay corruption didto nga pareha sa level sa Pilipinas, nakasabot mo?
Ang inyo man gud nga argumento nga ang Pilipinas mag lisud na ug support sa population. Which is "TRUE" but not because of "OVER POPULATION" but due to "CORRUPTION", kasabot ka brad?
Pero, sige lang brad, inig pass na ani nga bill, anha ra jud makita nato ang katag. Does the death penalty law, ring a bell?

Hahay, if population density lang, ayaw na i-compare ang Japan. They do have more people and slightly higher density, but they are almost having negative population growth and they have 100% school children attendance. Ganahan ka, ang mga similar sa population density, growth rate and economic situation sa ato: Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh. Pagpili kuno diha kung unsa-on nimo pag compare. In 1965, used to be Thailand and South Korea. Both have left us behind. Tan-awa na ug tarong unsay similarity anang mga developed and developing countries with high populations and high population density. Ang developed countries (Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Netherlands) all have very low population growth. And gamay ray religious influence. Kataw-an ta sa Tokyo nganong nag lalis pa ta about condom. Naa man gani shops didto devoted to condoms lang. Unsay ganahan nimo, glow in the dark or unsay color/flavor? Sa mga developing countries, there is high population growth (unya note nga higher ang growth sa Philippines ha compared to Indonesia, India, and Bangladesh) and grabe ang influence sa religion. Ikaw na lay figure out sa sunod kay scholar man kaha ka.

Kung corruption lang gyud pasanginlan nimo, in favor ko anang i firing squad nato nang corrupt government officials. Naa kay bill ana? Makakita kag mosupport nga mao na himuong balaod? Kay daghan mo support nimo ana. Pero unsaon man na nimo ug himo ug law? Kung sa kalibanga with fever pa ni nimo, tomara lang usa nang Biogesic nimo sa wa pa ka kapalit sa imong Imodium. Ug inom daghan tubig. Kay mo convulsion unya ka kung di ka motomar ug paracetamol.

[wng]

^^^. Mao nay dakong binuang ani nga bill brad kung unsa juy sulod ani. Maka gamit raman diay gihapon ug contra... bisan wala ni na bill, pero nganong naa paman ning ingon ani nga bill? Laktod pagkasulti, para maka allocate ug funds para ma kurakot or unsa ba?

Makapalit bitaw ang maka afford ug contraceptives with or without this bill. Sad to say, same people na nga maka afford unta ug additional children. Kinahanglan bitaw ug *** education. Tan-awa ni, rhythm method gihapon: Institute for Reproductive Health Philippines (IRHphi) Kung ganahan ka anang cervical mucus, wa ko motuon ana ug wa ko kahibaw kung asa puwede magpatudlo. Pero ayaw lang tawon patudlo sa mga pari ha...

Asa man tarong *** education diri? Sa porn ra man na nakat-onan kasagaran. And unsa may naka nindot anang porn ang educational material? Di daghan gyud ug di mao matun-an.

UNFPA is sponsoring programs here in the Philippines. Pero basin mo give up na kay wa lagi effect. Basin gikurakot ila funds. Basin gibabagan sa simbahan. Most likely, sakto nang 2 reasons. Kanang mga nabasahan nimo nga articles, kadto man nang mga angry tax payers sa developed countries nga di na ganahan mo fund pa sa population control sa other countries. Di man gani ka mo fund sa imong own country, sila na ba? Mao nang mo suwat sila nga di lagi na problem ang overpopulation. Bahala na ug gatambak na ning tawo diri sa Philippines ug sa Bangladesh. Wa man sila kakita unsa gyud situation diri. And why do they need to care? Ang spiritual leaders gani nato diri ug sa Bangladesh, mo oppose man gani sa ilaha... mao na... ikaw na lay tan-aw nganong 7 ang mga anak didto sa squatter area ug 3 ray mga anak diha sa mga maka afford.

[mannyamador]

@wng

if population density lang, ayaw na i-compare ang Japan. They do have more people and slightly higher density, but they are almost having negative population growth and they have 100% school children attendance.

Japan sees negative population growth as a HUGE PROBLEM. This leads to population ageing. That means the current workforce is now smaller in relation to the retired workforce. This will mean a bigger burden on current workers, larger social security payouts, bigger health care bills. There is no real solution to this except to have more younger people. But in the meantime, there is a large gap that cannot be fixed even in a generation.

Do you want that kind of problem in the Philippines? Poverty can be solved by ending corruption and bad governance ("overpopulation: was NEVER the problem). But that won't solve population ageing. We have NOTHING at our disposal to really mitigate the effects of population ageing.

Your solution brings with it even more problems that we don't currently have the means to solve. Wake up.

[wng]

Coming from Mr. Hitman himself, it's not sur[rising. He shoots first and doesn't even bother to ask questions. It's little wonder that htis murderer doesn't care about the lives of the unborn. He's quite willing to shoot those who are already born too when they get in his way. Should we be listening to this homicidal trapo?

Your argument vs. Mayor Duterte: ad hominem

@wng
Japan sees negative population growth as a HUGE PROBLEM. This leads to population ageing. That means the current workforce is now smaller in relation to the retired workforce. This will mean a bigger burden on current workers, larger social security payouts, bigger health care bills. There is no real solution to this except to have more younger people. But in the meantime, there is a large gap that cannot be fixed even in a generation.

Do you want that kind of problem in the Philippines? Poverty can be solved by ending corruption and bad governance ("overpopulation: was NEVER the problem). But that won't solve population ageing. We have NOTHING at our disposal to really mitigate the effects of population ageing.

Your solution brings with it even more problems that we don't currently have the means to solve. Wake up.

With a median age of 43.5 in Japan and 23 in the Philippines, hmmm... you want to take out some of our educational budget to fund some kind of geriatric institution? Don't forget to get some heavy blankets, jackets, and install lots of heaters. With climate change, it might start snowing here in the Philippines. Get some snow-moving equipment as well. And put 10% of our typhoon calamity budget to the winter storm calamity budget. You never know when a cold front might come here.

[bcasabee]

Wala ba diay tay health centers nga makatudlo ug family planning? Tapolan lang jud siguro ang mga tawo mo dangop sa mga health centers kay gusto pa jud rovingon. Unsa man say sulod anang *** education ba? Instinct naman na sa tawo ang *** bro. Instinct na sad na sa tawo nga kabalo nga kung mamburikat sila, lagmit masakit jud sila. Unsa pamay i-educate nimo ana? Family planning siguro imo pasabot bro, dili *** education kay sa family planning ma cover naman diha matters about ***. Pero, it shouldn't be separate subject nga imong itudlo ngadto sa highschool. Unsa man say itudlo nimo sa mga batan-on kuno? Unsaon pagtaud ug condom, unsa nga pills angay imnun? Remind them nga kung mandisco sila, dapat tomar daan ug pills or pagdala ug condom? Mao ba ni *** education?

Makapalit bitaw ang maka afford ug contraceptives with or without this bill. Sad to say, same people na nga maka afford unta ug additional children. Kinahanglan bitaw ug *** education. Tan-awa ni, rhythm method gihapon: Institute for Reproductive Health Philippines (IRHphi) Kung ganahan ka anang cervical mucus, wa ko motuon ana ug wa ko kahibaw kung asa puwede magpatudlo. Pero ayaw lang tawon patudlo sa mga pari ha...

Asa man tarong *** education diri? Sa porn ra man na nakat-onan kasagaran. And unsa may naka nindot anang porn ang educational material? Di daghan gyud ug di mao matun-an.

Wala na siyay effect bro kay wala juy effect, as simple as that. Kanang basin is just an alibi. Kay kung mahutdan naka ug budget para condom, aws, balik na sad walay condomay. Kung 1 million ka couples ang magsex everyday nga i subsidize, pila ka million imong usikan para lang ana. In a month, thats 30 million *** multiply by price of one condom. Assuming tag 10 pesos ang condom. Then 300 million a month ang gastoon? Daghana na mapa eskwela nga bata ana uy. Dili man siguro ka kinahanglan bright boy ka para makasabot ana. Mao nay answer ana bro, ang UNFPA wala ka sustiner kay "MAHAL" dili kay walay ningkagat. Pero ok ko anang family planning, pero kung mogamit man gani lang ug contraceptives, please lang, ayaw tawn ipagamit ang kwarta sa mga tawo kay usik usik lang na. Its their call kung asa sila mo palit sa ilang condom. Bro, daghan ko ug kaila nga middle class nga gamay ra ug anak, tungod kana kay bz sila sa ilang trabaho. In other words, naa ra na sa utok sa tawo. Kung walay lingaw imong utok bro, lagmit mosulod ang porma sa lawas sa sexy nga babae bro. Busyha lang imong utok bro para walay mosulod nga tentasyon. Simple ra kaayo na. Wala pay gasto. Ang mga pobre bro, natural, unsa may ilang gikabusyhan? Wala, di ba? So instead of the government wasting 300 million pesos a month for condoms, use it for livelihood projects para ma bz ang mga tawo. So kung busy na ang mga tawo, kapoy ang lawas inig uli sa balay, less ***, less children. Sakto?

UNFPA is sponsoring programs here in the Philippines. Pero basin mo give up na kay wa lagi effect. Basin gikurakot ila funds. Basin gibabagan sa simbahan. Most likely, sakto nang 2 reasons. Kanang mga nabasahan nimo nga articles, kadto man nang mga angry tax payers sa developed countries nga di na ganahan mo fund pa sa population control sa other countries. Di man gani ka mo fund sa imong own country, sila na ba? Mao nang mo suwat sila nga di lagi na problem ang overpopulation. Bahala na ug gatambak na ning tawo diri sa Philippines ug sa Bangladesh. Wa man sila kakita unsa gyud situation diri. And why do they need to care? Ang spiritual leaders gani nato diri ug sa Bangladesh, mo oppose man gani sa ilaha... mao na... ikaw na lay tan-aw nganong 7 ang mga anak didto sa squatter area ug 3 ray mga anak diha sa mga maka afford.

[bcasabee]

Ay sustagen bro, trivial example. Lets wake up to reality. Pila raman kaha ka couple ang makabuhat ani which will justify the passage of the Bill. Remember, ang Bill para ni sa mga pobre. Di ba? Ayaw ko ug ingna, inig debate didto sa congress, moingon si congress man so and so nga dapat i pass ni nga Bill kay daghan kaayo nga mga couples mangadto ug Boracay ug Paris magbakasyon, mag overpopulation unya ta ug mga middle class ug upper class citizens. Kakataw-anan sad nimo ug example bro uy.

Gaba? Single pa ka? Or mas dili ka na gabaan ang di pakan-on ug tarong ang mga anak? Kung minyo na ka, makasabot ra ka. Kay kung naa na kay daghan anak (sa imo ra ni kung 3 ba na or 8 ba na) unya imong asawa di na ganahan manganak, di gyud kamogamit ug condom? Let's say anniversary ninyo unya imong in-laws ga volunteer gyud para maka vacation mo. Adto mo ug Boracay (or Paris ba kay dako man kaha ka income), unya fertile period man. Di gyud ka mogamit ug condom?

Bro, so whats the Bill got to do with this man pud? Ayaw ko ingna ipa subsidize pud ang condom sa mga maburikatay? Samot ulbo kaspa sa mga taxpayers ani bro.

Ako innocente ra sad ko sa-una ba. Pero look at reality gyud. I would rather be surrounded by sinners without AIDS rather than sinners with AIDS. Mao na, kay di ko ka change anang sexual behavior sa mga tawo, bisan pa migo ko pa na. Maayo na lang nga wa na silay AIDS kaysa sa naa.

Makatabang lagi bro. Pero unsaon taman, ang gi priority ang remedial medicine raman, dili man ang mismong tambal jud nga maka ayo sa pinaka cause sa sakit. Worst pa jud, gi divert ang attention from the root cause of the problem and deceive the people that the symptoms of the problem is the main cause of the problem. Mao na brad.

Para klaro sa imo, bisan mo adto ka sa doctor, patomaron ka ug paracetamol kung naa ka fever (and yes, it's good to take Biogesic for diarrhea with fever). Pa-imnon sad ka ug rehydration solution. And patomaron sad ka ug Imodium or Diatabs or whatever to cure your diarrhea. So in short, makatabang na ang uban tambal maskin di na mao ang cause. Unya ayaw inom ug gatas kay mosamot imong kalibanga maskin di na gikan sa gatas. Same here, kung pobre na, ayaw na lang tawon mo panganak ug ika-7 kay mosamot ka dako ang inyong gasto.

Sus bro, special mention jud nimo akoang personal nga profile no? Hehehehe. Pasensiya na bro, naa man gud uban tawo nga namersonal, so akoa lang gihimo ug example ba ang akoang kaugalingon kung unsay dangatan sa tax nga gamiton ug tinarong. Di ba tarong pud ang resulta? Ayaw ko ug ingna dili ka mo too nako ana? Unfortunately for you bro, subsidizing the poor people's contraceptives is not one of those tarong nga buhat bro. Ang tarong bro, gamiton ang kwarta para sa atoang mga batan-on, infrastructure, livelihood ug dili pag subsidized anang contraceptives kay dako nang usik usik.
Kabalo ka ug unsay difference sa developed and developing countries? The developed countries are efficient, while developing countries, most of them are corrupt. They are developed because they worked very hard and their government is efficient. Sa Japan gani, naay mga tawo nga mas tagaan ug importansiya ang trabaho kaysa "PAMILYA".

Hahay, if population density lang, ayaw na i-compare ang Japan. They do have more people and slightly higher density, but they are almost having negative population growth and they have 100% school children attendance. Ganahan ka, ang mga similar sa population density, growth rate and economic situation sa ato: Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh. Pagpili kuno diha kung unsa-on nimo pag compare. In 1965, used to be Thailand and South Korea. Both have left us behind. Tan-awa na ug tarong unsay similarity anang mga developed and developing countries with high populations and high population density. Ang developed countries (Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Netherlands) all have very low population growth. And gamay ray religious influence. Kataw-an ta sa Tokyo nganong nag lalis pa ta about condom. Naa man gani shops didto devoted to condoms lang. Unsay ganahan nimo, glow in the dark or unsay color/flavor? Sa mga developing countries, there is high population growth (unya note nga higher ang growth sa Philippines ha compared to Indonesia, India, and Bangladesh) and grabe ang influence sa religion. Ikaw na lay figure out sa sunod kay scholar man kaha ka.

Brad, bisan unsa pa nga law imong isang-at, wala gihapon nay effect kay corrupt lagi, unsaon nato pag implement ana. Mura ra na ug death penalty law nga gitoohan nga makapa kunhod sa mga criminal pero wala ra gihapoy effect. Nindot unta brad kung federal government ta para mas dali masakpan ang mga korakot. Mao nay first step brad. Shooting many birds with one stone na brad kay masolbad pa jud nang Mindanao conflict once and for all.

Kung corruption lang gyud pasanginlan nimo, in favor ko anang i firing squad nato nang corrupt government officials. Naa kay bill ana? Makakita kag mosupport nga mao na himuong balaod? Kay daghan mo support nimo ana. Pero unsaon man na nimo ug himo ug law? Kung sa kalibanga with fever pa ni nimo, tomara lang usa nang Biogesic nimo sa wa pa ka kapalit sa imong Imodium. Ug inom daghan tubig. Kay mo convulsion unya ka kung di ka motomar ug paracetamol.

[mannyamador]

Your argument vs. Mayor Duterte: ad hominem

You seem to forget that his cavalier disregard for life is quite relevant. That's why his mindless comment is expected. His opinion's weight is based on his reputation as a mayor, not on his expertise (or rather lack of it) on the issue.

With a median age of 43.5 in Japan and 23 in the Philippines, hmmm... you want to take out some of our educational budget to fund some kind of geriatric institution?

That's precisely the point! We do NOT want population ageing in this country. With our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) dropping like a rock (in Manila it's already below replacement level), population ageing is a real possibility and it will take decades to reverse the trend. You have to act now, not when the problem is already kicking your rearend.

Next time try to figure out what's being said before making another spectacle of yourself.

[MRchurchill]

You seem to forget that his cavalier disregard for life is quite relevant. That's why his mindless comment is expected. His opinion's weight is based on his reputation as a mayor, not on his expertise (or rather lack of it) on the issue.

A double standard LOL he hates ad hominem arguments when they are directed at him. This guy is a joke so it's best to ignore him. I stopped reading his posts after he suggested scrapping the debt servicing law. Ironic that he uses economic principles to defend his beliefs but suggests that the government postpone paying it's debts. Again, LOL!

Ok so let's talk about something we actually notice everyday (I know you do you just deny it); The toll overpopulation takes on the environment. Let's see what kind of flash card you pull up your behind.

Population and the Environment: The Global Challenge
Don Hinrichsen and Bryant Robey
Excerpts from a Johns Hopkins University report


Environment getting worse

In the past decade in every environmental sector, conditions have either failed to improve, or they are worsening:

* Public health:
Unclean water, along with poor sanitation, kills over 12 million people each year, most in developing countries. Air pollution kills nearly 3 million more. Heavy metals and other contaminants also cause widespread health problems.

* Food supply:
Will there be enough food to go around? In 64 of 105 developing countries studied by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the population has been growing faster than food supplies. Population pressures have degraded some 2 billion hectares of arable land — an area the size of Canada and the U.S.

* Freshwater:
The supply of freshwater is finite, but demand is soaring as population grows and use per capita rises. By 2025, when world population is projected to be 8 billion, 48 countries containing 3 billion people will face shortages.

*Coastlines and oceans:
Half of all coastal ecosystems are pressured by high population densities and urban development. A tide of pollution is rising in the world’s seas. Ocean fisheries are being overexploited, and fish catches are down.

The demand for forest products exceeds sustainable consumption by 25%.

* Forests:
Nearly half of the world’s original forest cover has been lost, and each year another 16 million hectares are cut, bulldozed, or burned. Forests provide over US$400 billion to the world economy annually and are vital to maintaining healthy ecosystems. Yet, current demand for forest products may exceed the limit of sustainable consumption by 25%.

2/3 of the world’s species are in decline.

*Biodiversity:

The earth’s biological diversity is crucial to the continued vitality of agriculture and medicine — and perhaps even to life on earth itself. Yet human activities are pushing many thousands of plant and animal species into extinction. Two of every three species is estimated to be in decline.

*Global climate change:
The earth’s surface is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions, largely from burning fossil fuels. If the global temperature rises as projected, sea levels would rise by several meters, causing widespread flooding. Global warming also could cause droughts and disrupt agriculture.

Toward a livable future

How people preserve or abuse the environment could largely determine whether living standards improve or deteriorate. Growing human numbers, urban expansion, and resource exploitation do not bode well for the future. Without practicing sustainable development, humanity faces a deteriorating environment and may even invite ecological disaster.

* Taking action:

Many steps toward sustainability can be taken today. These include: using energy more efficiently, managing cities better, phasing out subsidies that encourage waste, [etc.]

* Stabilizing population:

While population growth has slowed, the absolute number of people continues to increase — by about 1 billion every 13 years. Slowing population growth would help improve living standards and would buy time to protect natural resources. In the long run, to sustain higher living standards, world population size must stabilize.

* Family planning programs play a key role. When family planning information and services are widely available and accessible, couples are better able to achieve their fertility desires.4 “Even in adverse circumstance — low incomes, limited education, and few opportunities for women — family planning programs have meant slower population growth and improved family welfare,” the World Bank has noted.1

Conclusion

If every country made a commitment to population stabilization and resource conservation, the world would be better able to meet the challenges of sustainable development. Practicing sustainable development requires a combination of wise public investment, effective natural resource management, cleaner agricultural and industrial technologies, less pollution, and slower population growth.

Worries about a “population bomb” may have lessened as fertility rates have fallen, but the world’s population is projected to continue expanding until the middle of the century. Just when it stabilizes and thus the level at which it stabilizes will have a powerful effect on living standards and the global environment. As population size continues to reach levels never before experienced, and per capita consumption rises, the environment hangs in the balance.

[mannyamador]

A double standard LOL

You obviously have no idea what an ad hominem argument is, do you? Citing Duterte in the first place is an example of an inverse ad hominem argument, relying on his alleged authority. i discredited his authority. And since I have already posted much evidence in support of my counter-assertions, it is quite clear that I do not rely solely on my having successfully discredited him.

Find out how to identify a fallacy and when it is not acceptable first before displaying what you don't know to the world.

I stopped reading his posts after he suggested scrapping the debt servicing law. Ironic that he uses economic principles to defend his beliefs but suggests that the government postpone paying it's debts.

You're quite hilarious! Do you know what INDISCRIMINATE debt servicing means? No? I thought so.

It means paying debts even when those debts were incurred anomalously, or only benefited corrupt dealmakers without any real benefits to the people. These are NOT debts of the Filipino people. Why should we pay for them?

The debt service law as implemented, however, makes no proper distinctions and neither does it consider what we can afford to pay. It forces the government to set aside a set portion of the budget for debt servicing, no matter what other priorities we may have or how odious the debt. It is quite obviously for the benefit of the debtors, not the people. Is that concept too difficult for you to get?

Ok so let's talk about something we actually notice everyday (I know you do you just deny it); The toll overpopulation takes on the environment.

You really should start a career as a comedian. As usual, the effects you posted are caused by bad governance. You seem to be unable to grasp that the toll on the economy by bad governance is greater than anything that could be brought about by population.

Simply restating a bunch of myths doesn't prove them. No correlating evidence is cited in this backward-thinking report. The claims corresond tot he Overpoulation Muths cited by Dr. Jacqueline Kasun. Here are the relevant ones vis-a-vis your latest round of flatulence.

Myth 2: Overpopulation is causing global warming.

The message that is most likely to arouse the fervor of young people is that overpopulation is destroying the environment and the biosphere. On this point, the first thing to keep in mind is that some of the most beautiful parts of the world, with the highest environmental quality, are in densely populated countries such as western Germany, which has more than 600 persons per square mile, and the Netherlands, which has almost 1200 persons per square mile, compared with 330 in China.

Several myths promote the belief that we are engulfed in an environmental catastrophe. For instance, Vice-President Al Gore and some scientists say population growth is causing global warming. But there is much disagreement in the scientific community about this. Seventy-nine scientists issued the "Leipzig Declaration" in 1995 saying ". . . There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about . . . greenhouse warming . . ." Additionally, the satellite readings of global temperature, available on the NASA Web site at www.nasa.com, do not show a warming trend.

And further, respected climatologists such as Hugh Ellsaesser, Richard S. Lindzen and Robert C. Balling vigorously dispute the notion of a global warming danger.

Myth 3: Overpopulation causes ozone depletion.

Like global warming, the cause and significance of the so-called ozone "hole" is a matter of intense scientific dispute, although the United States and other nations have agreed to reductions in the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were alleged to have caused it.

S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist who participated in the earliest ozone measurements, calls the ozone scare a "misuse of science." In fact, many think the chief function of the CFC ban has been to help big chemical companies establish highly profitable new monopolies on the CFC substitutes which they developed.

Myth 4: The world's forests are disappearing because of overpopulation.

This is an important matter because forests are an essential part of the world's environment and, therefore, humanity's well-being.

The Psalmists spoke in awe of the cedars of Lebanon. Today we know that trees inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, which means that they are a first line of defense against air pollution and the specter of global warming.

The world forested area, estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. (FAO), currently amounts to four billion hectares, covering 30 percent of the land surface of the earth. Few people realize this is the same figure as in the 1950s.

In the United States, vast forests cover a third of the land, according to the U.S. Forest Service. That's equivalent to two-thirds of the amount of land that was forested when the Europeans arrived in the 1600s. This acreage has not declined since 1920. In fact, annual forest growth today is more than 3 1/2 times what it was in 1920. Two-thirds of the nation's forests are classed as timberland, capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood annually. Another fact: Trees are growing 33 percent faster than they are being cut. The highest volumes of growth occur on privately-owned forest industry land, while the government-owned national forests, where the trees are older, have the lowest volumes of tree growth.

The National Wilderness Preservation System grew from nine million acres in 1964 to 96 million acres in 1993. But this is not enough for the environmentalists of The Wildlands Project, who hope to turn fully half of the land area of the United States into wilderness areas inhabited by grizzly bears, wolverines and mountain lions, and make it off-limits to humans.

There has also been great agitation about the "destruction of the tropical rainforests." Someone has claimed that an area twice the size of Belgium is now being logged worldwide each year, but people don't realize Belgium could fit into the world's tropical forests 500 times, and in the meantime, the rest of the world's trees -- 99.6 percent of them -- are continuing to grow.

One of the greatest of these tropical stands exists in Brazil, with more than half of the forests of South America. FAO and Brazilian government figures suggest that logging takes about two-tenths of one percent of forest acreage per year, and in 1993, Brazilian forests covered 58 percent of the country's total land area. Such figures hardly suggest a catastrophic decline.

Another thing that's misleading is that FAO figures show a "decline" in forest cover even when forest land is appropriated for use as public parks, and not a single tree is cut down.

And if in fact some deforestation is occurring in Brazil, it can scarcely be the result of overpopulation; Brazil has less than half as many people per square mile (31.2) as the world average (101).

Myth 5: Air pollution is the result of overpopulation, and acid rain, a byproduct of air pollution, is destroying lakes, rivers and forests.

In fact, air and water pollution levels have been highest in the centrally-planned economies of Eastern Europe and China, where population growth is low or negative. Legendary air pollution in Poland and Russia has occurred in areas with thinly-settled populations. In the United States, air pollution is declining significantly.

The federal government's National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program recently reported "no widespread forest or crop damage in the United States" related to acid rain.

Myth 6: Many plants and animals are disappearing because of the growth in human numbers.

There is absolutely no scientific data whatsoever to support this claim. Even a scientist such as David Jablonski, who believes species will decline, says, "We have no idea how many species are out there and how many are dying."


Some species, such as blue whales, spotted owls and blackfooted ferrets, have been found to be more numerous than was once thought. Since many species exist in forests and the earth's forest cover is remaining about the same, the claims of massive species extinction appear doubtful.

Myth 7: Overpopulation is threatening the world food supply.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, world food supplies exceed requirements in all world areas, amounting to a surplus approaching 50 percent in 1990 in the developed countries, and 17 percent in the developing regions.

"Globally, food supplies have more than doubled in the last 40 years . . . between 1962 and 1991, average daily per caput food supplies increased more than 15 percent . . . at a global level, there is probably no obstacle to food production rising to meet demand," according to FAO documents prepared for the 1996 World Food Summit. The FAO also reported that less than a third as many people had less than 2100 calories per person per day in 1990-92 as had been the case in 1969-71.

Seriously dude, consider that career move. You will succeed.

[MRchurchill]

You obviously have no idea what an ad hominem argument is, do you? Citing Duterte in the first place is an example of an inverse ad hominem argument, relying on his alleged authority. i discredited his authority. And since I have already posted much evidence in support of my counter-assertions, it is quite clear that I do not rely solely on my having successfully discredited him.

Liar. You tried to discredit his opinion by Christening him, in your own words despite being irrelevant to the issue at hand, as "mr. Hitman" or a "murderer" among others. How else did you try to discredit his arguments but by attacking his personality? Has he been convicted? Not that it matters, but No.

Don't lie you might end up in hell.

You're quite hilarious! Do you know what INDISCRIMINATE debt servicing means? No? I thought so.

Either you know nothing about economics and International Monetary and Loan Agreements or you want to defend your arguments so much you say debt servicing can be done without. To prove it's not the former, mind telling me the consequences? Or do you concede to being ignorant?

[INDENT]Myth 2: Overpopulation is causing global warming.

The message that is most likely to arouse the fervor of young people is that overpopulation is destroying the environment and the biosphere. On this point, the first thing to keep in mind is that some of the most beautiful parts of the world, with the highest environmental quality, are in densely populated countries such as western Germany, which has more than 600 persons per square mile, and the Netherlands, which has almost 1200 persons per square mile, compared with 330 in China.

Several myths promote the belief that we are engulfed in an environmental catastrophe. For instance, Vice-President Al Gore and some scientists say population growth is causing global warming. But there is much disagreement in the scientific community about this. Seventy-nine scientists issued the "Leipzig Declaration" in 1995 saying ". . . There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about . . . greenhouse warming . . ." Additionally, the satellite readings of global temperature, available on the NASA Web site at www.nasa.com, do not show a warming trend.

And further, respected climatologists such as Hugh Ellsaesser, Richard S. Lindzen and Robert C. Balling vigorously dispute the notion of a global warming danger.

Your sources are unimpeachable? ROFL Let's see:

Hugh Ellsaesser

* Advisor to Consumer Alert an organization, that was a “long-time recipient of PM [Philip Morris] funding.” At one point. Consumer Alert ran the “Cooler Heads Foundation” as part of the campaign to attack the science on global warming and is very closely aligned to another organization called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a US think tank that has received over $2 million from ExxonMobil since 1998. The Consumer Alert has received $70,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. [10][11][12]

* Former Science Advisory Board, George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that is actively engaged in attacking the science of climate change. The Institute has received $630,000 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Shit he has motive?

How about him?

Richard S. Lindzen

*charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

-Ross Gelbspan

*a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler

Maybe this guy is clean:

Robert C. Balling

*has been the eager recipient of funding from such philanthropic organizations as ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.

I Pwned Thee. That's what you get for copy-pasting without thinking ROFL. Now why should I go on debunking the rest of your posted entry and waste my time? Gudnyt Father.