An Inconvienent Truth

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#61
nhojsmith said:
nuclear war?

personally i think this crisis could be good in the extreme long term. for those of us that dont believe in the armageddon and return of the messiah, we face the real frontier, space. whether we kill the planet ourselves, or an asteroid, or plague, or storms on the sun, the human race needs to come to terms with the fact that earths viability and its resources are not infinite. i agree with hawking, we need to get off this rock and spread our bets. maybe crisis is the only thing that will motivate this.
First we need a radical change in the way we think about the world...

Only then is the scientific progress needed for these things to happen possible...

Remember, there was a cold war and we sent a person to the moon mere 12 years after the first satellite was launched. 40 years later we haven't really moved much with our space technologies. Why? Because of expenses...

These are much more important things than some cheap ass budget, but most people prefer their money to be spent on fast food and porn DVDs rather than for the advancement of mankind. That's the type of thinking that has to go away, hopefully the crisis will speed up the process

Edit: nuclear war is not a solution, we want to save us, the planet and life on it. True, cockroaches and bacteria are going to survive but I don't know what else will
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#62
ThaG said:
Here it is:

The real problem are not fossil fuels but rather the quantities we use and our energy demands. These, in turn, come from overpopulation. When you consider two facts:

1. the world population is rapidly approaching 7 billions and will be 10 billions by 2030-2050

2. countries with enormous population that were previously mostly rural (China and India) are rapidly industrializing

You will understand that there is very little you can do to reduce emissions. And you need not only to reduce emissions but to reduce them by at least 80% IMMEDIATELY if you want to spare more than a billion people the inconvenience of having to look for new homes after the ones they had are flooded.

Even if you are a magician and you find a way to produce absolutely clena energy with no emissions of GHG, you still have problems with pollution, destruction of environments, desertification, etc.

And again it all comes to population and its size

Reduce population and you're on the way to solve all these problems

The current estimates point that we are using 30% more resources than the Earth can provide. Not only that, the trends are:

1. increase in population size

2. increase in resources used per capita

3. decrease in the available resources

The sustainable number of human population is 2.2 billion, the number drops to 1.25-1.5 if everybody consumes as the average American. We are 7 billion...

So how do you reduce population? The answer is that you can't do it in the current sociopolitical situation when everybody who dares to state the problem is labeled as a Nazi and when 85% of world's population blindly believes in God, Jehova, Allah, or whatever the fuck they believe in and their religion tells them "Have as many kids as you can". Especially true for catholics and muslims (maybe that's why Latin America and mulsim countries have some of the highest population growth rates).

A solution has been proposed - introduce a "birth permit", e.g allow only those people who have the financial resources to raise a child and give it proper education and who have no record of child abuse to have 1 kid. This is the best solution but there's a problem - it is slow and we're facing a rapid increase in sea level if we don't do something immediately. Moreover, it will still have to include lots of infanticide because there will be all kinds of morons who will have babies despite the ban and they will have to be killed if we really want to achieve some results. It will still be too slow though, certainly not enough to rapidly bring the population back to 2.2 billions. And nobody ever will pass such a law. Not in the world we live in.

The other solution is to kill people. 5 billions to be exact. It's not a pretty solution, I know and it will not be done either. Not in this world...
I understand your point, but a birth permit won't happen in this country(which isn't a half bad idea because of all the lack of parenting out there). like nhojsmith said I think Nuclear war is more likely to occur to obtain that goal.
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#63
ThaG said:
First we need a radical change in the way we think about the world...

Only then is the scientific progress needed for these things to happen possible...

Remember, there was a cold war and we sent a person to the moon mere 12 years after the first satellite was launched. 40 years later we haven't really moved much with our space technologies. Why? Because of expenses...

These are much more important things than some cheap ass budget, but most people prefer their money to be spent on fast food and porn DVDs rather than for the advancement of mankind. That's the type of thinking that has to go away, hopefully the crisis will speed up the process

Edit: nuclear war is not a solution, we want to save us, the planet and life on it. True, cockroaches and bacteria are going to survive but I don't know what else will
2019 isn't that the year they think people will be on Mars?
 

mouth_my_nuts

🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻
Feb 16, 2006
4,988
11,885
113
#64
Yup the population and resource issue is covered in that doc too. If west antartica was to melt, sealevel would rise 20 feet everywhere.
 
Feb 17, 2005
1,729
2
0
#65
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/climate-debate-and-faq/climadebate-and-faq

What is climate research at the DNSC?

The Earth’s climate is always changing. This has been the case in the geological and historical time and even during the last 150 years, where systematic climate measurements have been made, we have seen clear climate changes.

Climate changes have both a scientific and a social perspective. The social perspective is associated with the range of climate change that can be attributed to the increasing human induced contribution. The scientific perspective is an endeavour to understand the full complex system of the various sources of climate change and their mutual interactions.

The Danish National Space Center, DNSC, comprises the country's largest collected expertise in the scientific disciplines that play a major and documented role in the understanding of climate change both in geological and historical time, namely variations in solar activity. DNSC regards it essential that this collected expertise is being used in an attempt to understand the natural causes of climate change in order to evaluate the contribution of natural causes to global change. Taking into account the large uncertainty associated with the estimated human contribution, a good research based estimate of the range of natural climate variations is an essential information.

DNSC is basing its effort in this area on own scientific results – observational, experimental, and theoretical. The scientific results have been published internationally and indicate that the varying activity of the Sun is indeed the largest and most systematic contributor to natural climate variations. The effect goes through solar modulation of the cosmic radiation, which affects the formation of aerosols and thereby also the formation of clouds. Even though a physical mechanism connecting cosmic rays to aerosol formation has been found experimentally, no climate model has yet made an attempt to include such an effect.

That there exists a significant contribution from solar activity variations to global temperature increase does not, however, exclude other contributions to the rising global temperature, natural as well as human. DNSC, however, is focused on establishing the best possible and scientifically based evaluation of the size of solar induced effects on climate.

Why is the climate changing?

Climate is subject to influences by both natural and human forces, including greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar activity, and land use change. The climate system is extremely complex and any estimate of the human contribution to climate change is very uncertain.

What are the natural causes to climate change?

Changes in the Sun contribute to climate change. Solar activity has been exceptionally high in the 20th century compared to the last 400 years and possibly compared to the past 8,000 years. When solar activity is high, the flux of galactic cosmic rays is reduced due to increased magnetic shielding by the Sun. The cosmic rays may influence Earths climate through formation of low lying clouds.

How can cosmic rays influence cloud formation?

Cosmic rays ionize the atmosphere and an experiment performed at the Danish National Space Center has found that the production of aerosols in a sample atmosphere with condensable gases (such as sulphuric acid and water vapor) depends on the amount of ionization. Since aerosols work as precursors for formation of cloud droplets, this is an indication that cosmic rays affect climate.

Climate models only include the effects of the small variations in the direct solar radiation (infrared, visible and UV). The effects of cosmic rays on clouds are not included in models and the models do a rather poor job of simulating clouds in the present climate. Since cloud feedbacks are a large source of uncertainty, this is a reason for concern when viewing climate model predictions.
 
Feb 17, 2005
1,729
2
0
#67
Also a lot of the data the shit in the IPCC and Al Gore talk about is based off results from computer models. A computer model of the environment is not going to be all that good because the weather is enormously complex. So I tend to disbelieve a lot of the scare tactic type stuff these people say with the rises in sea level and stuff. Even if it is true, big fucking deal we have the ability to ADAPT we will be fine.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#68
HiT-2-TiMeS said:
Also a lot of the data the shit in the IPCC and Al Gore talk about is based off results from computer models. A computer model of the environment is not going to be all that good because the weather is enormously complex. So I tend to disbelieve a lot of the scare tactic type stuff these people say with the rises in sea level and stuff. Even if it is true, big fucking deal we have the ability to ADAPT we will be fine.
LOL

Do we have the ability to build new homes for more than a billion people?

Do we have the ability to feed 10 billion people with 1 billion refugees from sea level rise in a world of rapidly changing climate when we couldn't even feed 3, 4, 5, 6 and now 7 billions in a much more stable climate? Rapidly changing climate = very bad news for agriculture in case you don't know....

Do we have the ability to find land where people from Netherland and some island countries can relocate?

It is that type of "everything will be fine, why bother?" thinking that lead us to the catastrophe
 
Aug 8, 2003
5,360
22
0
41
#69
i dunno if these have been posted already but here they are anyway..

fact: thousands of years ago there was more co2 in the atmosphere then there is today and the climate was colder.

fact: the sun is at its high point in its cycle giving off more heat and radiation then in the past.

fact: the surrounding planets in our solar system have seen increased temps also
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#70
TROLL said:
i dunno if these have been posted already but here they are anyway..

fact: thousands of years ago there was more co2 in the atmosphere then there is today and the climate was colder.
When exactly and why do you think CO2 is the only determinant of global climate? Solar activity, Milankovitch cycles, ocean currents and atmospheric circulation are also very important (see Snowball Earth hypothesis)

What is absolutely certain is that everything else equal, more CO2 means a warmer planet. Everything else is equal/can't change in a matter of 150 years...

fact: the sun is at its high point in its cycle giving off more heat and radiation then in the past.


Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun.
............

fact: the surrounding planets in our solar system have seen increased temps also
not all of them...
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#71
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[7] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
....
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#75
ThaG said:
Where did I lie?

When you claim something you need to be able to back it up...
We discussed it in another thread.

and when 85% of world's population blindly believes in God, Jehova, Allah, or whatever the fuck they believe in and their religion tells them "Have as many kids as you can". Especially true for catholics and muslims (maybe that's why Latin America and mulsim countries have some of the highest population growth rates).
We went over this before and you offered NOTHING to back your claim. We went over religion and birth control and how certain religions view sexuality. Since we went over this and you offered NO EVIDENCE to support your claim, why are you still promoting lies?

Again, you are blaming RELIGION for population increases, yet you want to LIMIT what you have constantly stated evolution designed us to do. :dead:
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#76
HERESY said:
We discussed it in another thread.



We went over this before and you offered NOTHING to back your claim. We went over religion and birth control and how certain religions view sexuality. Since we went over this and you offered NO EVIDENCE to support your claim, why are you still promoting lies?

Again, you are blaming RELIGION for population increases, yet you want to LIMIT what you have constantly stated evolution designed us to do. :dead:
I stick to everything I said

Do you deny the bible says "Go forth and multiply"??

Do you deny population control is a taboo in most Muslim countries and catholics don't want to hear about it either? Weren't you the one thinking destroying a human embryo is unethical?

If you can't answer these questions without revealing yourself as the hypocrite you are, please shut the fuck up and don't tell people who tell the truth liars
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#77
I stick to everything I said
sure you do.

Do you deny the bible says "Go forth and multiply"??
No not at all. Is this any different than evolution saying "spread your genes as much as possible"?

Do you deny the bible teaches abstinence and condemns sex before marriage and children being born out of wedlock?

A yes or no will suffice.

Do you deny population control is a taboo in most Muslim countries
I addressed that in the other thread. Refer to it.

and catholics don't want to hear about it either?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05107/489014.stm

Weren't you the one thinking destroying a human embryo is unethical?
In the other thread (the one where we talked baout muslims, abortion, etc(, I believe I stated my opinion on abortion. If I didn't I'll do it here. I believe in abortion in cases of rape, incest and if the mothers life is in danger. BTW, did you hear about Georges VETO of stem cell research?

If you can't answer these questions without revealing yourself as the hypocrite you are, please shut the fuck up and don't tell people who tell the truth liars
I answered without revealing myself to be a hypocrite, so I can now not shut the fuck up and can continue to call you a liar.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#79
No not at all. Is this any different than evolution saying "spread your genes as much as possible"?
An outright lie

Evolutionists never said "Spread your genes as much as possible", they tell you that this is what drives your behavior. They do not tell you what you should do

Do you deny the bible teaches abstinence and condemns sex before marriage and children being born out of wedlock?

A yes or no will suffice.
A yes or no will not suffice because you are twisting things

The bible teaches abstinence and condemns sex before marriage, that's right. What does that have to do with birth control? The uselessness of abstinence for prevention of STDs and premarital pregancy aside, you may be a virgin before you marry, it doesn't matter if you have 10 kids after that. That's exactly why Latin America and muslims countries are experiencing a population boom. The Bible says "Go forth and multiply", this is relevant to the population problem, not abstinence.

I can argue that abstinence also contributes because kids will grow largely ignorant about sex if they don't practice it early. Do you know the story about a young couple in Pakistan that went to the doctor complaining they can't have kids? The doctor examined the girl and found absolutely no medical problems. Only when he asked them what exactly they are doing when they make sex, it became clear they were so ignorant about basic human anatomy that they were using the wrong hole...

This an extreme case, but you get the point....


I see that the pope bans birth control....

In the other thread (the one where we talked baout muslims, abortion, etc(, I believe I stated my opinion on abortion. If I didn't I'll do it here. I believe in abortion in cases of rape, incest and if the mothers life is in danger. BTW, did you hear about Georges VETO of stem cell research?
Which veto, the one from 2001? I've heard about it more than I would wish I had...

Have you ever seen the yellow tape dividing labs in two - a part when work with "presidential" cell lines will be done and a part where a work with "non-presidential" cell lines can be done. I've seen it...

You can't even touch non-presidential cell lines with pipette tips bought with federal money.

Sheer lunacy...
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#80
An outright lie

Evolutionists never said "Spread your genes as much as possible", they tell you that this is what drives your behavior. They do not tell you what you should do
Read what you quoted again. Please R-E-A-D what you quoted again. I am not talking about evolutionists, but the doctrine/dogma of evolution, and YOU are the evolutionist who said our purpose here is to spread our genes as much as possible.

The bible teaches abstinence and condemns sex before marriage, that's right. What does that have to do with birth control? The uselessness of abstinence for prevention of STDs and premarital pregancy aside, you may be a virgin before you marry, it doesn't matter if you have 10 kids after that.
ThaG that IS a form of birth control. Nothing else needs to be said.

That's exactly why Latin America and muslims countries are experiencing a population boom. The Bible says "Go forth and multiply", this is relevant to the population problem, not abstinence.
The bible also says a man is worse than an infidel if he doesn't take care of his kids, yet you see many kids in america that are without their fathers and depend on welfare to sustain themselves. If the bible says "go forth and multiply" why are you putting a limit on it when YOU already said our sole purpose is to spread our genes? At that point isn't the bible simply reaffirming evolution?

I can argue that abstinence also contributes because kids will grow largely ignorant about sex if they don't practice it early.
And I can also argue that practicing early is what contributes to the growth of population. In fact, I can post teh info if you like. :dead:

Do you know the story about a young couple in Pakistan that went to the doctor complaining they can't have kids? The doctor examined the girl and found absolutely no medical problems. Only when he asked them what exactly they are doing when they make sex, it became clear they were so ignorant about basic human anatomy that they were using the wrong hole...This an extreme case, but you get the point....
LOL! You finally have some wit and humor about yourself. Have you considered that maybe their culture places a stigma on sex and looks at is a "bad" thing? Could that be the reason why they were misinformed?

I see that the pope bans birth control....
Since you want to play the role of a dummy:

More than three-quarters of Catholics in the United States say the church should allow the use of artificial birth control, according to a recent Gallup Poll. And millions ignore the ban every day.

Which veto, the one from 2001? I've heard about it more than I would wish I had...
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/20/ap3840172.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/washington/20stem.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

Have you ever seen the yellow tape dividing labs in two - a part when work with "presidential" cell lines will be done and a part where a work with "non-presidential" cell lines can be done. I've seen it...

You can't even touch non-presidential cell lines with pipette tips bought with federal money.

Sheer lunacy...
Well if you come to america you better use a q-tip or something because no taxpayer money will be devoted to cell lines or yellow tape.