(08-17-2018 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-16-2018 12:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  Supposedly impartial Google has decided it is and tags any skeptics.
This article pretty clear shows the answer is: "It depends."

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog...is-warming

"...So here's the real answer to the question of whether the earth's ciimate system "is warming":

If your start date is June 2018, it "is warming."
If your start date is January 2016, it "is cooling."
If your start date is January 1998, it "is cooling."
If your start date is 1880, it "is warming."
If your start date is the year 1000, it "is cooling."
If your start date is the Dark Ages, it "is warming."
If your start date is Roman times, it "is cooling."
In short, the question is completely meaningless.

It's hard to believe that the supposed geniuses at Google could be taken in by a scam so obvious and so transparent. But that's the world we live in."

The Earth's climate is warming. I have a child who lives on the arctic ocean right now. The sea creatures that show up are from warmer waters. Permafrost is eroding and ancient skeletal remains of creatures and humans are being found. In Siberia the Russians have had problems with methane explosions coming out of the permafrost. There is no doubt for those who live at the poles that things are warming, none!

What makes it confusing is what may be called the refrigerator effect. If you leave the freezer top door open on your refrigerator does the space in front of your fridge feel warmer or cooler? It's cooler right? Well does the meat in that freezer section of the fridge thaw slowly or remain frozen? It thaws.

The reason there is confusion is that as the Polar ice melts it gives off cool air which circulates into the lower latitudes creating cooler than normal weather as you move toward the equator. Now that air is also more moist than all such blasts from the arctic have been in the past because what's frozen contains its water. The result has been near tropical weather in the Southeast for the past two summers. The scientists who check on these things have stayed with my progeny for the past 5 years when they come up to take the annual measurements. It is a fact that the planet is warming and that human pollution is contributing to it.

What is in dispute is whether or not the pollution has tipped any kind of natural balance, or, if we are just going through a warming cycle because this planet has always had ice ages and tropical periods in its very long life. Distance to the Sun given the various positions of our orbits can influence these changes, solar storms which have been at a zenith these past 5 plus years also contribute to these kind of events.

So what ticks me off about the conservative vs liberal debate on this issue is that (1) we are currently warming at the poles and there is no debate about that. (2) Human pollution has contributed to the overall effect. (3) Whether human pollution has been the catalyst for the change, or whether they are cyclical, or caused by extraneous events like solar activity, is highly debatable.

So to the conservatives I say it is real and human pollution is contributing. To the liberals I say it is not clear at all whether human pollution contributes enough to be a causative factor. But what we need to quit quibbling about is that human pollution is destroying eco systems. The poles may warm and the sub tropical regions may turn tropical and it could all be natural. But the destruction of coral reefs, the dumping of plastics and toxins into the oceans, runoff from pesticides in rivers and streams and lakes and ponds are all very real threats to humanity and are solely because of humanity.

The seas are over fished, are not as productive, and the killing off of the top predators in the oceans have disrupted the food chain at the top while the pollution has impacted the food chain at the bottom and the brewing catastrophe there is enough to kill off 3/4's the global population due to starvation should that eco system collapse. It provides well over 70% of the globe's protein sources.

So it's time to end the debate on human pollution as a whole. It's our fault and only we can solve it, but the longer we debate it the worse the damage and final results will be.

We may get more humid and we may get hotter, but that won't kill us off as fast as losing eco systems. And water, in all forms, is under duress. Aquifers that it took millions of years for natural filtration to form are being drained (causing sinkholes in some places), the ability to cleanse river, lake and pond water of carcinogens is getting tougher and tougher to do due to some of the compounds involved, and the oceans are under a ton of stress that doesn't get emphasized as much.

Agree there is no debate on the fact that the earth is warming. There is also no debate that man is contributing to the warming. However, the degree to which man is contributing to the warming is debatable. IMHO, our gov'ts actions imply - to me at least - that they do not take climate change that seriously. You don't essentially kill nuclear power and expect to not position the country to drastically reduce CO2 emissions. Granted, the natural gas boon is putting a dagger into coal, and that has had a significant impact on reducing CO2 emissions.

In a separate thread, I posted an article on how the biggest tech innovations in the future will be calling for vast increases in energy production. Again - how do you pull that off without the nuke plants if the goal is to also drastically cut CO2?

(08-17-2018 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-16-2018 12:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  Supposedly impartial Google has decided it is and tags any skeptics.
This article pretty clear shows the answer is: "It depends."

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog...is-warming

"...So here's the real answer to the question of whether the earth's ciimate system "is warming":

If your start date is June 2018, it "is warming."
If your start date is January 2016, it "is cooling."
If your start date is January 1998, it "is cooling."
If your start date is 1880, it "is warming."
If your start date is the year 1000, it "is cooling."
If your start date is the Dark Ages, it "is warming."
If your start date is Roman times, it "is cooling."
In short, the question is completely meaningless.

It's hard to believe that the supposed geniuses at Google could be taken in by a scam so obvious and so transparent. But that's the world we live in."

The Earth's climate is warming. I have a child who lives on the arctic ocean right now. The sea creatures that show up are from warmer waters. Permafrost is eroding and ancient skeletal remains of creatures and humans are being found. In Siberia the Russians have had problems with methane explosions coming out of the permafrost. There is no doubt for those who live at the poles that things are warming, none!

What makes it confusing is what may be called the refrigerator effect. If you leave the freezer top door open on your refrigerator does the space in front of your fridge feel warmer or cooler? It's cooler right? Well does the meat in that freezer section of the fridge thaw slowly or remain frozen? It thaws.

The reason there is confusion is that as the Polar ice melts it gives off cool air which circulates into the lower latitudes creating cooler than normal weather as you move toward the equator. Now that air is also more moist than all such blasts from the arctic have been in the past because what's frozen contains its water. The result has been near tropical weather in the Southeast for the past two summers. The scientists who check on these things have stayed with my progeny for the past 5 years when they come up to take the annual measurements. It is a fact that the planet is warming and that human pollution is contributing to it.

What is in dispute is whether or not the pollution has tipped any kind of natural balance, or, if we are just going through a warming cycle because this planet has always had ice ages and tropical periods in its very long life. Distance to the Sun given the various positions of our orbits can influence these changes, solar storms which have been at a zenith these past 5 plus years also contribute to these kind of events.

So what ticks me off about the conservative vs liberal debate on this issue is that (1) we are currently warming at the poles and there is no debate about that. (2) Human pollution has contributed to the overall effect. (3) Whether human pollution has been the catalyst for the change, or whether they are cyclical, or caused by extraneous events like solar activity, is highly debatable.

So to the conservatives I say it is real and human pollution is contributing. To the liberals I say it is not clear at all whether human pollution contributes enough to be a causative factor. But what we need to quit quibbling about is that human pollution is destroying eco systems. The poles may warm and the sub tropical regions may turn tropical and it could all be natural. But the destruction of coral reefs, the dumping of plastics and toxins into the oceans, runoff from pesticides in rivers and streams and lakes and ponds are all very real threats to humanity and are solely because of humanity.

The seas are over fished, are not as productive, and the killing off of the top predators in the oceans have disrupted the food chain at the top while the pollution has impacted the food chain at the bottom and the brewing catastrophe there is enough to kill off 3/4's the global population due to starvation should that eco system collapse. It provides well over 70% of the globe's protein sources.

So it's time to end the debate on human pollution as a whole. It's our fault and only we can solve it, but the longer we debate it the worse the damage and final results will be.

We may get more humid and we may get hotter, but that won't kill us off as fast as losing eco systems. And water, in all forms, is under duress. Aquifers that it took millions of years for natural filtration to form are being drained (causing sinkholes in some places), the ability to cleanse river, lake and pond water of carcinogens is getting tougher and tougher to do due to some of the compounds involved, and the oceans are under a ton of stress that doesn't get emphasized as much.

I can't pat this post on the back hard enough....

the only thing I would add is the increase in numbers of humans that contributed to the demise of the ecosystem.....

IMO, one is going to neutralize the other regardless of natural resources.....

w/o manipulation, the flesh is doomed as the law of diminishing approaches.....the bibble folk will call it the apocalypse....

humans are essentially a virus waiting to emerge.....the planet will be just fine w/o us....it was before we became 'life'....it will after we no longer exist....and I do believe within the next 200 yrs, they'll completely solve the genome and eradicate as req'd....it's the only logical 'next step'....

people will relocate over time as they always have based on climate......this is nothing new.....

the only 'new' thingy is the ability to communicate w/o smoke *oh shite, it's 4:22

(08-17-2018 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-16-2018 12:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  Supposedly impartial Google has decided it is and tags any skeptics.
This article pretty clear shows the answer is: "It depends."

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog...is-warming

"...So here's the real answer to the question of whether the earth's ciimate system "is warming":

If your start date is June 2018, it "is warming."
If your start date is January 2016, it "is cooling."
If your start date is January 1998, it "is cooling."
If your start date is 1880, it "is warming."
If your start date is the year 1000, it "is cooling."
If your start date is the Dark Ages, it "is warming."
If your start date is Roman times, it "is cooling."
In short, the question is completely meaningless.

It's hard to believe that the supposed geniuses at Google could be taken in by a scam so obvious and so transparent. But that's the world we live in."

The Earth's climate is warming. I have a child who lives on the arctic ocean right now. The sea creatures that show up are from warmer waters. Permafrost is eroding and ancient skeletal remains of creatures and humans are being found. In Siberia the Russians have had problems with methane explosions coming out of the permafrost. There is no doubt for those who live at the poles that things are warming, none!

What makes it confusing is what may be called the refrigerator effect. If you leave the freezer top door open on your refrigerator does the space in front of your fridge feel warmer or cooler? It's cooler right? Well does the meat in that freezer section of the fridge thaw slowly or remain frozen? It thaws.

The reason there is confusion is that as the Polar ice melts it gives off cool air which circulates into the lower latitudes creating cooler than normal weather as you move toward the equator. Now that air is also more moist than all such blasts from the arctic have been in the past because what's frozen contains its water. The result has been near tropical weather in the Southeast for the past two summers. The scientists who check on these things have stayed with my progeny for the past 5 years when they come up to take the annual measurements. It is a fact that the planet is warming and that human pollution is contributing to it.

What is in dispute is whether or not the pollution has tipped any kind of natural balance, or, if we are just going through a warming cycle because this planet has always had ice ages and tropical periods in its very long life. Distance to the Sun given the various positions of our orbits can influence these changes, solar storms which have been at a zenith these past 5 plus years also contribute to these kind of events.

So what ticks me off about the conservative vs liberal debate on this issue is that (1) we are currently warming at the poles and there is no debate about that. (2) Human pollution has contributed to the overall effect. (3) Whether human pollution has been the catalyst for the change, or whether they are cyclical, or caused by extraneous events like solar activity, is highly debatable.

So to the conservatives I say it is real and human pollution is contributing. To the liberals I say it is not clear at all whether human pollution contributes enough to be a causative factor. But what we need to quit quibbling about is that human pollution is destroying eco systems. The poles may warm and the sub tropical regions may turn tropical and it could all be natural. But the destruction of coral reefs, the dumping of plastics and toxins into the oceans, runoff from pesticides in rivers and streams and lakes and ponds are all very real threats to humanity and are solely because of humanity.

The seas are over fished, are not as productive, and the killing off of the top predators in the oceans have disrupted the food chain at the top while the pollution has impacted the food chain at the bottom and the brewing catastrophe there is enough to kill off 3/4's the global population due to starvation should that eco system collapse. It provides well over 70% of the globe's protein sources.

So it's time to end the debate on human pollution as a whole. It's our fault and only we can solve it, but the longer we debate it the worse the damage and final results will be.

We may get more humid and we may get hotter, but that won't kill us off as fast as losing eco systems. And water, in all forms, is under duress. Aquifers that it took millions of years for natural filtration to form are being drained (causing sinkholes in some places), the ability to cleanse river, lake and pond water of carcinogens is getting tougher and tougher to do due to some of the compounds involved, and the oceans are under a ton of stress that doesn't get emphasized as much.

Eloquent and insightful! I am sceptical that countries will change though. Only the consumer can change things and commercials are very effective. Hence their value. Programs are created for the commercial or is it the other way around?

(08-17-2018 04:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-16-2018 12:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  Supposedly impartial Google has decided it is and tags any skeptics.
This article pretty clear shows the answer is: "It depends."

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog...is-warming

"...So here's the real answer to the question of whether the earth's ciimate system "is warming":

If your start date is June 2018, it "is warming."
If your start date is January 2016, it "is cooling."
If your start date is January 1998, it "is cooling."
If your start date is 1880, it "is warming."
If your start date is the year 1000, it "is cooling."
If your start date is the Dark Ages, it "is warming."
If your start date is Roman times, it "is cooling."
In short, the question is completely meaningless.

It's hard to believe that the supposed geniuses at Google could be taken in by a scam so obvious and so transparent. But that's the world we live in."

The Earth's climate is warming. I have a child who lives on the arctic ocean right now. The sea creatures that show up are from warmer waters. Permafrost is eroding and ancient skeletal remains of creatures and humans are being found. In Siberia the Russians have had problems with methane explosions coming out of the permafrost. There is no doubt for those who live at the poles that things are warming, none!

What makes it confusing is what may be called the refrigerator effect. If you leave the freezer top door open on your refrigerator does the space in front of your fridge feel warmer or cooler? It's cooler right? Well does the meat in that freezer section of the fridge thaw slowly or remain frozen? It thaws.

The reason there is confusion is that as the Polar ice melts it gives off cool air which circulates into the lower latitudes creating cooler than normal weather as you move toward the equator. Now that air is also more moist than all such blasts from the arctic have been in the past because what's frozen contains its water. The result has been near tropical weather in the Southeast for the past two summers. The scientists who check on these things have stayed with my progeny for the past 5 years when they come up to take the annual measurements. It is a fact that the planet is warming and that human pollution is contributing to it.

What is in dispute is whether or not the pollution has tipped any kind of natural balance, or, if we are just going through a warming cycle because this planet has always had ice ages and tropical periods in its very long life. Distance to the Sun given the various positions of our orbits can influence these changes, solar storms which have been at a zenith these past 5 plus years also contribute to these kind of events.

So what ticks me off about the conservative vs liberal debate on this issue is that (1) we are currently warming at the poles and there is no debate about that. (2) Human pollution has contributed to the overall effect. (3) Whether human pollution has been the catalyst for the change, or whether they are cyclical, or caused by extraneous events like solar activity, is highly debatable.

So to the conservatives I say it is real and human pollution is contributing. To the liberals I say it is not clear at all whether human pollution contributes enough to be a causative factor. But what we need to quit quibbling about is that human pollution is destroying eco systems. The poles may warm and the sub tropical regions may turn tropical and it could all be natural. But the destruction of coral reefs, the dumping of plastics and toxins into the oceans, runoff from pesticides in rivers and streams and lakes and ponds are all very real threats to humanity and are solely because of humanity.

The seas are over fished, are not as productive, and the killing off of the top predators in the oceans have disrupted the food chain at the top while the pollution has impacted the food chain at the bottom and the brewing catastrophe there is enough to kill off 3/4's the global population due to starvation should that eco system collapse. It provides well over 70% of the globe's protein sources.

So it's time to end the debate on human pollution as a whole. It's our fault and only we can solve it, but the longer we debate it the worse the damage and final results will be.

We may get more humid and we may get hotter, but that won't kill us off as fast as losing eco systems. And water, in all forms, is under duress. Aquifers that it took millions of years for natural filtration to form are being drained (causing sinkholes in some places), the ability to cleanse river, lake and pond water of carcinogens is getting tougher and tougher to do due to some of the compounds involved, and the oceans are under a ton of stress that doesn't get emphasized as much.

I can't pat this post on the back hard enough....

the only thing I would add is the increase in numbers of humans that contributed to the demise of the ecosystem.....

IMO, one is going to neutralize the other regardless of natural resources.....

w/o manipulation, the flesh is doomed as the law of diminishing approaches.....the bibble folk will call it the apocalypse....

humans are essentially a virus waiting to emerge.....the planet will be just fine w/o us....it was before we became 'life'....it will after we no longer exist....and I do believe within the next 200 yrs, they'll completely solve the genome and eradicate as req'd....it's the only logical 'next step'....

people will relocate over time as they always have based on climate......this is nothing new.....

the only 'new' thingy is the ability to communicate w/o smoke *oh shite, it's 4:22

I agree that mother nature will eventually shake the fleas off of the dog. What most folks missed was that for millennia the population of humans was roughly 3.5 billion. One thing was the catalyst for overpopulation and it sure as hell wasn't medicine. It was petroleum. From the advent of petroleum based fertilizers the population has shot up at almost a 45 degree angle on the old growth chart. From the final quarter of the 19th century until today the population as almost tripled. The reason has been agricultural yields that could feed the growth. Petroleum has enhanced yields by 10 fold plus. Pesticides would be the second most noticeable change. However with those have come many more secondary illnesses to the those who have unwittingly consumed them.

Some say we are at peak oil, some say we are already past it by a few years, and some say it is looming directly ahead. With population continuing to grow globally when the choice is between relatively inexpensive fertilize or skyrocketing gasoline and fuel costs, I'm afraid once again we will choose incoherently to continue to burn the fuel at the expense of the fertilizer. Either way past peak oil starvation looms for a large segment of the population and the Pentagon has already geared its long range strategy for this century around the defense of potable water supplies. It may be that they add agricultural lands to that before it's over with.

Needless to say, without petroleum based fertilizers the earth will likely go back to giving us the yields that only sustained 3.5 billion, or less since we have paved over fertile crescents in California and Virginia to accommodate urban sprawl and middle class vistas. And that 3.5 billion was sustained through the oceans as well which are over fished, polluted, and is suffering the bleaching of reefs which help to form the baseline of all life in the seas.

PS to Miko 33: We might have to rely on the supposed myth of cold fusion for energy.

One thing that I heard several years ago, made sense based on the data presented then, and I wonder if it is still true.

That is that the warming is not occurring uniformly, but is focused on the polar areas. The tropics won't boil as much as the poles will melt. That has several implications, one of them being that Siberia could become a food producing region. With population growing, that is not a bad thing.

Now although the tropics may not boil, they may drown from melting ice. What I'd do is try to find ways to use the extra water. With desalinization, it could be used to irrigate major portions of the Sahara, which would also help with the food issue. Another thing that might work is the Niger River has its headwaters very close to the coast, then meanders north through the center of the Sahara before it bends back south through Nigeria to the sea. Pumping water is expensive, particularly uphill, but it might be doable for such a short distance to do desalinization along the coast, pump the water up to the Niger headwaters, and keep the Niger flowing year round to support significant agricultural growth. We might also consider connecting places below sea level, like the Qattara depression and the Salton Sea and Lake Eyre, to the ocean. That could store a lot of ice melt. There is a proposed Qattara project. I've thought of doing it as a way to help the Egyptian economy and maybe as the bribe to get them to give up enough of Sinai to create a Palestinian nation in their ancient homeland. The other thing I think we could do with the Sahara is massive solar farms. Bring power to all of Africa from there, and probably power a lot of Europe too. This would apply particularly in the parts that are at too high altitude and too far from the Niger to make desalinization practical.

These are all huge undertakings. Those are the kinds of things I think we need to be doing. If we could turn the Sahara and Siberia into major food producing regions, we could solve a lot of the world's problems.

One thing we need to realize is we dont really understand climate all that well. A person simply predicting that tomorrow's weather will be the same as today will only be wrong 10% less than the National Wheather Service. Our modeling is only decent a few days out---and fairly worthless at more than a week out. So how accurate are models predicting decades out?

I just suspect we are going to find that the warming and cooling of the planet is normal and has little to do with man. Its likely to be far more reliant on fluctuations in the sun, volcanic activity, and the earths orbit than anything we are doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

lol...as you can see from the chart above, we have had issues with it being too cold for more of the worlds history than being too warm. The chart below goes farther back and shows that since we hit global max temp (about 50 million years ago) the globe has been cooling and for the last 5 million years its been too frickin cold for us FAR more often than too warm. It also shows that the current temperature band is a relatively new development (about 10,000 years) and is by no means indicative of the "normal" state of the earths climate (be sure to pay attention to the change in the time scale in the timeline's modern era). Frankly, I'd argue that overpopulation is a much bigger issue than climate change. The points that JR makes about overpopulation are pretty hard to dispute.

https://muchadoaboutclimate.files.wordpr...4_temp.png

(08-17-2018 07:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing we need to realize is we dont really understand climate all that well. A person simply predicting that tomorrow's weather will be the same as today will only be wrong 10% less than the National Wheather Service. Our modeling is only decent a few days out---and fairly worthless at more than a week out. So how accurate are models predicting decades out?

I just suspect we are going to find that the warming and cooling of the planet is normal and has little to do with man. Its likely to be far more reliant on fluctuations in the sun, volcanic activity, and the earths orbit than anything we are doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

lol...as you can see from the chart above, we have had issues with it being too cold for more of the worlds history than being too warm. The chart below goes farther back and shows that since we hit global max temp (about 50 million years ago) the globe has been cooling and for the last 5 million years its been too frickin cold for us FAR more often than too warm. It also shows that the current temperature band is a relatively new development (about 10,000 years) and is by no means indicative of the "normal" state of the earths climate (be sure to pay attention to the change in the time scale in the timeline's modern era). Frankly, I'd argue that overpopulation is a much bigger issue than climate change. The points that JR makes about overpopulation are pretty hard to dispute.

https://muchadoaboutclimate.files.wordpr...4_temp.png

Population stressing the resources is an issue.

We only have accurate temperature readings in lots of places over the last 30-50 years. We only have accurate readings for 100 years or so. Everything else is based on projection based on data from very limited areas. So our knowledge of how things were in the past is very limited. It would be like an alien landing in the South Chicago and assuming all human life was like that. We have some historical records, but its all pretty limited. We are basing this on a few ice cores from Greenland or cores from German bogs.

So 1) we don't know a lot about past weather. And 2) the weather patterns and solar cycles last millions of years, far beyond the existence of humanity. So we don't understand long term trends. Earth is on an upward tick in warming, but we don't know how much and we certainly don't know if it is part of a natural cycle or human induced. It may be that we would be heading into an ice age if not for human activity. Or human influence may be minimal.

We do know that climate cultists have falsified data, used questionable readings and refuse to debate the issues. We know that they, in a direct afront to science, blame every weather pattern on climate change. In pretty much every National Geographic article they blame droughts or rainfall or cold weather or hot weather on man made global warming. As if there had never been droughts or rainfall or cold or hot weather before. They even blamed the Syrian civil war on climate change.

If any of these climate cultists were serious, they would be talking a lot about limiting development in coastal areas. If their projections are only partly true, there is nothing we can do that will keep sea levels from rising over the next 50-100 years. Yet they almost never talk about that.

(08-17-2018 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  If any of these climate cultists were serious, they would be talking a lot about limiting development in coastal areas. If their projections are only partly true, there is nothing we can do that will keep sea levels from rising over the next 50-100 years. Yet they almost never talk about that.

They're not actually talking about anything that will have a material impact. That's one reason why I'm skeptical about their intentions.

(08-17-2018 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  If any of these climate cultists were serious, they would be talking a lot about limiting development in coastal areas. If their projections are only partly true, there is nothing we can do that will keep sea levels from rising over the next 50-100 years. Yet they almost never talk about that.

They're not actually talking about anything that will have a material impact. That's one reason why I'm skeptical about their intentions.

What irritates me is the talk about the carbon footprint. Is misdirects the attention away from things we need to be doing right now for the health of the seas. Let's focus on getting nations like China to stop dumping all of their garbage into the ocean and dumping their chemicals there too. For that matter before we start in on China let's stop letting some of our Northeastern states from doing the same.

If we want an international accord on something related to the climate let it be about the mass dumping of trash, garbage, medical waste, chemical waste, and other such filth in the oceans. Let's the United Nations (a basically useless organization) levy fines and sanctions against the offenders as well.

But the Carbon footprint agenda is much ado about nothing anyone is going to really act on, so let's spend that energy on something more useful to attack.

(08-17-2018 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  If any of these climate cultists were serious, they would be talking a lot about limiting development in coastal areas. If their projections are only partly true, there is nothing we can do that will keep sea levels from rising over the next 50-100 years. Yet they almost never talk about that.

They're not actually talking about anything that will have a material impact. That's one reason why I'm skeptical about their intentions.

National Geographic had an article that said the most informed were the people who felt most strongly on both sides of the issue. They suggested it had to do with approval of their "tribe" and how their tribe felt about petrochemicals. They seemed totally oblivious how much more that applied to their side.

I think after 35 + years I may drop my subscription to National Geographic. The latest editor is a full on SJW. There was a gender issue quoting only the left. There was a race issue which had a good article related to DNA but then got into DWB, mentioning Michael Brown and hands up, don't shoot without pointing out it was a lie. They talked about Blacks being shot in confrontations with police more than whites which is another lie.

And not surprisingly, one of the first things she did as editor was drop the letters to the editor. There were a lot of interesting, well informed writers.

(08-17-2018 08:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 07:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  If any of these climate cultists were serious, they would be talking a lot about limiting development in coastal areas. If their projections are only partly true, there is nothing we can do that will keep sea levels from rising over the next 50-100 years. Yet they almost never talk about that.

They're not actually talking about anything that will have a material impact. That's one reason why I'm skeptical about their intentions.

National Geographic had an article that said the most informed were the people who felt most strongly on both sides of the issue. They suggested it had to do with approval of their "tribe" and how their tribe felt about petrochemicals. They seemed totally oblivious how much more that applied to their side.

I think after 35 + years I may drop my subscription to National Geographic. The latest editor is a full on SJW. There was a gender issue quoting only the left. There was a race issue which had a good article related to DNA but then got into DWB, mentioning Michael Brown and hands up, don't shoot without pointing out it was a lie. They talked about Blacks being shot in confrontations with police more than whites which is another lie.

And not surprisingly, one of the first things she did as editor was drop the letters to the editor. There were a lot of interesting, well informed writers.

Print publications in general will be that way Bullet. They think that upper middle class people will be left leaning and that they have enough to afford subscriptions to a dwindling subscriber base so they pander. Add to it the fact that most journalism schools are far left to begin with and that's where they are going to dip for editors and voila!

I don't subscribe to anything anymore. I got tired of having an agenda shoved at me with every turn of the page. The quickest way to shut them up is not to support them.

somebody's got something that says this, somebody's got something that says that. i think we can all agree that we need want to live in a clean world. we all want and need fresh water and healthy air. we want to maintain the natural beauty, but it comes at a cost. man needs to support himself. it's never going to be perfect and the world doesn't really care one way or the other. hey, if you don't need me i'll be over here playing hacky sack. big oil gets a bad rap because people couldn't be bothered to walk a half hour, hour. it blows people's minds when i tell them i walked here. i mean, america's affluence will cause it to consume more, which pretty much affects the entire world. so, to maintain the delicate balance, this, homeostasis or whatever, all we have to do is to convince americans to consume less and exercise

love walking. one of my heroes is edward payson weston

(08-18-2018 12:58 PM)Lush Wrote:  somebody's got something that says this, somebody's got something that says that. i think we can all agree that we need want to live in a clean world. we all want and need fresh water and healthy air. we want to maintain the natural beauty, but it comes at a cost. man needs to support himself. it's never going to be perfect and the world doesn't really care one way or the other. hey, if you don't need me i'll be over here playing hacky sack. big oil gets a bad rap because people couldn't be bothered to walk a half hour, hour. it blows people's minds when i tell them i walked here. i mean, america's affluence will cause it to consume more, which pretty much affects the entire world. so, to maintain the delicate balance, this, homeostasis or whatever, all we have to do is to convince americans to consume less and exercise

love walking. one of my heroes is edward payson weston

Well---you'd pretty much have to re-design most every city in the US---especially those in the Sunbelt that seem to be particularly prone to urban sprawl. I still dont think the real issue with the planet is oil or climate. Its population. We consume a ton of crap and probably have a horrible carbon footprint. But we also spend alot of money cleaning up our mess, minimizing the damage we cause, and looking for cleaner options. The 3rd world nations have exploding populations and no money. They burn what they have, destroy resources with no concern over depletion, and discard the trash/waste products in whatever way they can with no concern about the adverse affects on the surrounding environment. The bulk of the global environmental damage isnt coming from the developed countries----its coming from the poor countries with exploding populations---and China.

(08-18-2018 03:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 12:58 PM)Lush Wrote:  somebody's got something that says this, somebody's got something that says that. i think we can all agree that we need want to live in a clean world. we all want and need fresh water and healthy air. we want to maintain the natural beauty, but it comes at a cost. man needs to support himself. it's never going to be perfect and the world doesn't really care one way or the other. hey, if you don't need me i'll be over here playing hacky sack. big oil gets a bad rap because people couldn't be bothered to walk a half hour, hour. it blows people's minds when i tell them i walked here. i mean, america's affluence will cause it to consume more, which pretty much affects the entire world. so, to maintain the delicate balance, this, homeostasis or whatever, all we have to do is to convince americans to consume less and exercise

love walking. one of my heroes is edward payson weston

Well---you'd pretty much have to re-design most every city in the US---especially those in the Sunbelt that seem to be particularly prone to urban sprawl. I still dont think the real issue with the planet is oil or climate. Its population. We consume a ton of crap and probably have a horrible carbon footprint. But we also spend alot of money cleaning up our mess, minimizing the damage we cause, and looking for cleaner options. The 3rd world nations have exploding populations and no money. They burn what they have, destroy resources with no concern over depletion, and discard the trash/waste products in whatever way they can with no concern about the adverse affects on the surrounding environment. The bulk of the global environmental damage isnt coming from the developed countries----its coming from the poor countries with exploding populations---and China.

XACLY!

people can talk semantics all the want.....

it's the numbers that matter at the end of the day......

this is where warming provides life is completely misinterpreted by the tree huggers....

if it wasn't for warming, we wouldn't multiply.....

toss in lack of war and lack of famine in the developed areas and it becomes.......................................

how do we pay for and feed all these fellers......

we reached saturation long ago......

now it's who survives due to attrition......

one day it will be by design......

I'll have a toke and toddy now.....

I've seen these thoughts before...





There has been a race going on between growth of the human race and the innovations that the human race can bring about to stave off mass starvation. So far, man has won this race albeit rather unevenly.

As mentioned earlier, the lack of major wars in the the last few generations after the greatest generation is allowing the world population at higher rates. The developed world has unwittingly taken on the social responsibility of population control while the poorer people with the sh!tty cultures propagate like rabbits. I hate to say it, but the refugees being allowed to pour into the developed nations is thwarting natural evolution IMHO.

It can be tough to discuss, but at the end of the day I expect some type of culling to occur in the future. Whether that is done in the active sense or passively via closing borders remains to be seen.

(08-18-2018 04:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I've seen these thoughts before...





There has been a race going on between growth of the human race and the innovations that the human race can bring about to stave off mass starvation. So far, man has won this race albeit rather unevenly.

As mentioned earlier, the lack of major wars in the the last few generations after the greatest generation is allowing the world population at higher rates. The developed world has unwittingly taken on the social responsibility of population control while the poorer people with the sh!tty cultures propagate like rabbits. I hate to say it, but the refugees being allowed to pour into the developed nations is thwarting natural evolution IMHO.

It can be tough to discuss, but at the end of the day I expect some type of culling to occur in the future. Whether that is done in the active sense or passively via closing borders remains to be seen.

this is where being an atheist doesn't make it difficult to discuss.....

you simply piled on the same thing I've been saying for decades now.....

we're in an unsustainable growth pattern due to perfect climate for cultivation.....

be it eradication via a climate shift, famine, civil war, mastering the genome, etc..... a reduction will happen down the road.....it's the "when" that is always the question mark....

(08-18-2018 07:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 04:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I've seen these thoughts before...





There has been a race going on between growth of the human race and the innovations that the human race can bring about to stave off mass starvation. So far, man has won this race albeit rather unevenly.

As mentioned earlier, the lack of major wars in the the last few generations after the greatest generation is allowing the world population at higher rates. The developed world has unwittingly taken on the social responsibility of population control while the poorer people with the sh!tty cultures propagate like rabbits. I hate to say it, but the refugees being allowed to pour into the developed nations is thwarting natural evolution IMHO.

It can be tough to discuss, but at the end of the day I expect some type of culling to occur in the future. Whether that is done in the active sense or passively via closing borders remains to be seen.

this is where being an atheist doesn't make it difficult to discuss.....

you simply piled on the same thing I've been saying for decades now.....

we're in an unsustainable growth pattern due to perfect climate for cultivation.....

be it eradication via a climate shift, famine, civil war, mastering the genome, etc..... a reduction will happen down the road.....it's the "when" that is always the question mark....

There are ways to approach this which are reasonable.

1. Every couple agrees to have 1 child only. It could even be made a law. In 200 years you would have reduced to the population to 5.5 billion and in another 200 years to 2.7 billion roughly.

2. Employ reverse WIC and Welfare. You get food subsidies and a check monthly as long as you remain childless. Right now we reward the least productive for having the most children they can't support. It's so stupid of a policy that it defies trying to explain.

3. Wait on mosquito born viruses to do their work. Since the human population could be tracked mosquito born viruses and illnesses are responsible for almost half of all human deaths.

Zika is interesting in a natural evolutionary way in that it basically attacks the infants and is carried in the host fertile adults.

Also as we become more tropical the means for the spread of these killers becomes more likely and prevalent.

One of the oldest known maxims in politics is that you always get more of what you subsidize. Subsidize births and people breed like ants. Subsidize sterility and the population will shrink.

(08-18-2018 09:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 07:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 04:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I've seen these thoughts before...





There has been a race going on between growth of the human race and the innovations that the human race can bring about to stave off mass starvation. So far, man has won this race albeit rather unevenly.

As mentioned earlier, the lack of major wars in the the last few generations after the greatest generation is allowing the world population at higher rates. The developed world has unwittingly taken on the social responsibility of population control while the poorer people with the sh!tty cultures propagate like rabbits. I hate to say it, but the refugees being allowed to pour into the developed nations is thwarting natural evolution IMHO.

It can be tough to discuss, but at the end of the day I expect some type of culling to occur in the future. Whether that is done in the active sense or passively via closing borders remains to be seen.

this is where being an atheist doesn't make it difficult to discuss.....

you simply piled on the same thing I've been saying for decades now.....

we're in an unsustainable growth pattern due to perfect climate for cultivation.....

be it eradication via a climate shift, famine, civil war, mastering the genome, etc..... a reduction will happen down the road.....it's the "when" that is always the question mark....

There are way to approach this which are reasonable.

1. Every couple agrees to have 1 child only. It could even be made a law. In 200 years you would have reduced to the population to 5.5 billion and in another 200 years to 2.7 billion roughly.

2. Employ reverse WIC and Welfare. You get food subsidies and a check monthly as long as you remain childless. Right now we reward the least productive for having the most children they can't support. It's so stupid of a policy that it defies trying to explain.

3. Wait on mosquito born viruses to do their work. Since the human population could be tracked mosquito born viruses and illnesses are responsible for almost half of all human deaths.

Zika is interesting in a natural evolutionary way in that it basically attacks the infants and is carried in the host fertile adults.

Also as we become more tropical the means for the spread of these killers becomes more likely and prevalent.

One of the oldest known maxims in politics is that you always get more of what you subsidize. Subsidize births and people breed like ants. Subsidize sterility and the population will shrink.

1. agree - will never happen.....and even China upped it to 2 now....

2. that's my #1 pet peeve....nailed it....

3. is plausible but we're too good at nailing it down within a few mos......

your summary is sound.....

it goes much deeper into the well, but those are solid talking points.....

(08-18-2018 09:56 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 09:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 07:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 04:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I've seen these thoughts before...





There has been a race going on between growth of the human race and the innovations that the human race can bring about to stave off mass starvation. So far, man has won this race albeit rather unevenly.

As mentioned earlier, the lack of major wars in the the last few generations after the greatest generation is allowing the world population at higher rates. The developed world has unwittingly taken on the social responsibility of population control while the poorer people with the sh!tty cultures propagate like rabbits. I hate to say it, but the refugees being allowed to pour into the developed nations is thwarting natural evolution IMHO.

It can be tough to discuss, but at the end of the day I expect some type of culling to occur in the future. Whether that is done in the active sense or passively via closing borders remains to be seen.

this is where being an atheist doesn't make it difficult to discuss.....

you simply piled on the same thing I've been saying for decades now.....

we're in an unsustainable growth pattern due to perfect climate for cultivation.....

be it eradication via a climate shift, famine, civil war, mastering the genome, etc..... a reduction will happen down the road.....it's the "when" that is always the question mark....

There are way to approach this which are reasonable.

1. Every couple agrees to have 1 child only. It could even be made a law. In 200 years you would have reduced to the population to 5.5 billion and in another 200 years to 2.7 billion roughly.

2. Employ reverse WIC and Welfare. You get food subsidies and a check monthly as long as you remain childless. Right now we reward the least productive for having the most children they can't support. It's so stupid of a policy that it defies trying to explain.

3. Wait on mosquito born viruses to do their work. Since the human population could be tracked mosquito born viruses and illnesses are responsible for almost half of all human deaths.

Zika is interesting in a natural evolutionary way in that it basically attacks the infants and is carried in the host fertile adults.

Also as we become more tropical the means for the spread of these killers becomes more likely and prevalent.

One of the oldest known maxims in politics is that you always get more of what you subsidize. Subsidize births and people breed like ants. Subsidize sterility and the population will shrink.

1. agree - will never happen.....and even China upped it to 2 now....

2. that's my #1 pet peeve....nailed it....

3. is plausible but we're too good at nailing it down within a few mos......

your summary is sound.....

it goes much deeper into the well, but those are solid talking points.....

Well, if we don't discuss it, educate the populace of the globe about it, and pursue it, we will wind up extincting ourselves after we have eaten most of the other mammals and marine life on the planet out of existence. It's insane. For the faithful I would merely say that if God spoke directly to us today the deity would say, "Hey Dummies! Be Fruitful and Quit Multiplying! What are you stupid! When I told you to multiply there were only two of you!" And then he would ask, "Who was the idiot that translated the ancient Hebrew word for manage into the Latin and English words for subdue?" I told you to manage the planet and all that was on it, not subdue it and ruin it!"

But then as Monty Python would point out the guy who translated the old Hebrew for manage was probably the same guy who said, "What did he say? Blessed are the Cheese makers?"