On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
he never denied meteor impacts, he was simply saying that they weren't the cause of mass extinction
So, you believe that a virus or bacteria can exterminate 90% of life on Earth, when we have proven that stength in numbers disproves this hypothesis? You also believe that the Earth's oceans are covered in hydrogen sulfide and will at once rise up congruently across the globe and cause a mass chain reaction leading to mass extinction? Occams Razor is pretty apt here. The simple answer is most likely the correct answer. Meteor Impact.
On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote: Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race.
Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space?
get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit.
the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources.
how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now?
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote: Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race.
Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space?
get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit.
the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources.
how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now?
He was pretty clear how, breakthrought development in.... every field
Specially desalinization, because that thing is damn expensive.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
he never denied meteor impacts, he was simply saying that they weren't the cause of mass extinction
So, you believe that a virus or bacteria can exterminate 90% of life on Earth, when we have proven that stength in numbers disproves this hypothesis? You also believe that the Earth's oceans are covered in hydrogen sulfide and will at once rise up congruently across the globe and cause a mass chain reaction leading to mass extinction? Occams Razor is pretty apt here. The simple answer is most likely the correct answer. Meteor Impact.
bacterial infection killing 90% of the species on the planet is ridiculous.
anyone with a biology degree or background in biology will laugh at such a claim.
bacteria are very specialized. all the bacteria are typically in equilibrium with the ecosystem. if a new form of bacteria just popped out from under the ocean, it would not be well suited for the environment and would just die. if it was well suited to the environment, it would be similar to another form of bacteria that's already in equilibrium, so the new bacteria wont get out of control.
and bacteria attacking and killing 90% of lifeforms is even more crazy. i'm not even going to address that idea.
On August 06 2009 15:22 D10 wrote: Earth has around 15 billion people capacity, but thats not the problem, the problem is when are we going to create subaquatic cities ?
I Know brazil is pretty advanced regarding deep water drilling and etc... tech, so I hope we win this race.
Um....? We have plenty of land space for easily 30 billion+ people. Take for example the US. The US only has about 5-8% developed land. Vast majority of the US 90%+ is undeveloped. Extrapolating this, at 50% developed the US alone can sustain 3.5 billion people. (350Million x 10)
With the ever increasing technology leaps in regards to desalinization, genetic manipulation, and hydroponics, etc. it is quite conceivable to even raise that to 40 billion+. By the time we reach 30 billion population we'll be traversing the stars. Limitless options abound at that point.
this is literally one of the dumbest most ignorant things i've ever heard on teamliquid. you are saying that the earth can support 5x the amount of people currently alive because there is space?
get your head out of your fucking ass for a minute and think a bit.
the oceans are literally almost all fished out. most of the natural forests are destroyed. fossil fuels are nearing depletion within our lifetime. our fucking factories are causing global warming. the top 1% of the world's population use 90% of its resources.
how do you propose we increase our population to 5x of what it is now?
You are aware I am in the Coast Guard, and one of our important functions is policing EEZ's (Exclusive Economic Zones), correct? The ocean is not "almost fished out". I'm sure you've seen the umpteen amounts of documentaries concerning crabbing, tuna runs, seals, etc. The Ocean encompasses the vast majority of land on the planet. If we haven't wiped out all forms of land based sustenance by now which comprises the tiny majority of space on Earth what makes you think that we have done that to the Oceans which are multitudes larger. The Ocean is thriving just fine. Just because a few whale species is on the endangered list does not an ocean depleted make.
Secondly, there are things called Fish farms. I'm sure you've seen them before. Quite a bit more efficient than trawling. That is going to be the future of fisheries.
Natural Forests? Whats the difference between a Natural forest and a "manufactured forest" (Ones in which we plant)? Trees are a renewable resource. Forests are not going anywhere. I mean, its not like the Amazon rainforest is 5% of its former self, or the Boreal forest is 15% of its former self, no? I'm also quite unsure what Forests have to do with the sustainability of humanity?
If our government wasn't so stubborn and didn't have such deep derision involved with the means of producing electricity we would be mostly a Nuclear powered country like France. Nuclear energy is cheap, plentiful, and in no ways going to run out anytime shortly (shortly being like 1000 years+++). By the time Fission technology is no longer feasible (haha), we'll all ready have mastered Nuclear Fusion. Fusion is unlimited in its scope. We will never have another energy need once we master Fusion.
Ah yes, Global Warming, that little thing called a theory. In which there is more evidence that disproves it than proves it. Science politicized is not science at all. I would like for you to conduct the Scientific Method on Global Warming please. The Scientific Method is the construct for science. If you cannot apply the method then you have no workable theory, period.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
tulkas, you are mis-understanding me. i'm not saying this from my own opinion, logic, or deduction. this information is readily available from credible scientific researches that have been performed and are accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. The other .1% are the bastards getting bribed by big oil companies trying to make it seem like the scientific community is unsure.
You do know that Ice shelves and other constructs like icebergs disperse water, thereby increasing the sea level correct? Have you ever for instance, had ice in a glass filled with tea, or water? Have you noticed its effect? Now, do a quick simple test. Fill the glass halfway with water, then add in 10 ice cubes. Measure the liquids height at its crest. Next, wait until all the ice melts and measure again. I'd love for you to point out the "increased levels of liquid". Thanks.
Since you seem to like experiments a lot I have one you could do at home. Fill a bathtub with with water until it's half full. Then 1cm above the water write: Southeastern Asia, New york and Holland. Next step is to take a giant block of ice, say a 40cm cube and place on a shelf above the bathtub. Plug in your hairdryier then point it at the ice cube and be careful not to drop the fan into the bathtub. Come back in 30minutes. You may notice that Southeastern Asia, New york and Holland are now underwater, if not repeat the ice cube step. We may have lost a couple of million people but hey atleast the shelf is empty!
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
he never denied meteor impacts, he was simply saying that they weren't the cause of mass extinction
So, you believe that a virus or bacteria can exterminate 90% of life on Earth, when we have proven that stength in numbers disproves this hypothesis? You also believe that the Earth's oceans are covered in hydrogen sulfide and will at once rise up congruently across the globe and cause a mass chain reaction leading to mass extinction? Occams Razor is pretty apt here. The simple answer is most likely the correct answer. Meteor Impact.
bacterial infection killing 90% of the species on the planet is ridiculous.
anyone with a biology degree or background in biology will laugh at such a claim.
bacteria are very specialized. all the bacteria are typically in equilibrium with the ecosystem. if a new form of bacteria just popped out from under the ocean, it would not be well suited for the environment and would just die. if it was well suited to the environment, it would be similar to another form of bacteria that's already in equilibrium, so the new bacteria wont get out of control.
and bacteria attacking and killing 90% of lifeforms is even more crazy. i'm not even going to address that idea.
orion beating jd and perfectman beating iris was ridiculous but it still happened but anyway on topic i believe this is possible, this couldve happened when lifeforms were young (like dinosaurs) a couple of millions of years ago. the human race isnt even 100,000 years old. the virus couldve lasted for a million of years then died.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
tulkas, you are mis-understanding me. i'm not saying this from my own opinion, logic, or deduction. this information is readily available from credible scientific researches that have been performed and are accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. The other .1% are the bastards getting bribed by big oil companies trying to make it seem like the scientific community is unsure.
Oh, you mean there are more scientists than population in the US? Thats news to me.
I remember reading from a few different sources that the earth has a max capacity gauged at about 15billion with it's current form. If however, the whole earth lived like americans do, it could onlt support 2-3 billion.
and about the ice thing, if its in the water, its already displaced the water regardless if it melts or not. The height doesn't change at all. Now if it is on land and falls into the sea then you will see a rise.
You do know that Ice shelves and other constructs like icebergs disperse water, thereby increasing the sea level correct? Have you ever for instance, had ice in a glass filled with tea, or water? Have you noticed its effect? Now, do a quick simple test. Fill the glass halfway with water, then add in 10 ice cubes. Measure the liquids height at its crest. Next, wait until all the ice melts and measure again. I'd love for you to point out the "increased levels of liquid". Thanks.
Since you seem to like experiments a lot I have one you could do at home. Fill a bathtub with with water until it's half full. Then 1cm above the water write: Southeastern Asia, New york and Holland. Next step is to take a giant block of ice, say a 40cm cube and place on a shelf above the bathtub. Plug in your hairdryier then point it at the ice cube and be careful not to drop the fan into the bathtub. Come back in 30minutes. You may notice that Southeastern Asia, New york and Holland are now underwater, if not repeat the ice cube step. We may have lost a couple of million people but hey atleast the shelf is empty!
P.S.: 1cm equals about 0.4 of an inch.
What? This makes no sense. I guess the Arctic Ice Shelves are hovering in mid-air. Also, what makes your line of where the cities are accurate? Do you know the sea levels of each city?
The glass test is the best test that simulates the effects on sea levels that ice has.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
tulkas, you are mis-understanding me. i'm not saying this from my own opinion, logic, or deduction. this information is readily available from credible scientific researches that have been performed and are accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. The other .1% are the bastards getting bribed by big oil companies trying to make it seem like the scientific community is unsure.
Oh, you mean there are more scientists than population in the US? Thats news to me.
Luckily there are still foreign scientists :/ Never rely on the US to try to take care of the environment or we will all be screwed over.
Can't believe you think that the Earth can support another 6-7 billion people... I know you have cited a good deal of figures to support Earth being very underutilized, that there are more resources to go around, that African nations are in trouble only because they are embroiled in strife. You don't seem to realize that humans are not in the near future going to be able to utilize the Earth's resources in a clean and productive manner, or even in the manner that the world's highly developed nations do now.
On August 06 2009 16:06 MrHoon wrote: Aegraen I can never understand you. At one point you are the worst poster in TL and yet sometimes you are the most informative poster in TL.
WAT R U?
I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you Mr. Hoon. I am merely myself. I have a deep admiration for the Enlightenment period thinkers and scientists and as such I try to model how I view the world and science in the general sense that they would. In the end its up to each one of us to educate ourselves. If I am of any help to any of you, then I'm satisfied and if you wish further inqueries into sources of information PM me and I would be glad to suggest some great reading material.
i was searching youtube for a video of a glass with water AND ice cubes melting (Cause I've seen it before from some anti global warming thing) and I stumbled across this instead.
On August 06 2009 14:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Thus one more reason that we need to concentrate on Space exploration and the Sciences of it.
Seriously. I dont know why the vast majority of our resources are not spent on space. I really wish humans had the capacity to settle our differences and focus on the future.
On August 06 2009 15:02 Aegraen wrote: We have actual evidence that points to the meteor impacts. You only need to look at the meteor impact in Siberia in 1950s-60s (I'm not sure on the exact year, but it was in the mid 1900s), which was comparatively a pin prick compared to the massive crater that formed the Gulf of Mexico.
There is no way for a chemical to eradicate 90+% of the life on earth. It would literally have to encompass the entire globe. Is there any supporting evidence of hydogren sulfide carpeting the ocean floor?
Secondly, everything we know about biology basically disproves the notion that a single, or even multiple bacterium or virus strains can systemically destroy a species, let alone wipe out 90%+ of life on earth. For example, it is literally impossible to eradicate humanity by way of a virus or bacteria because there will always be a % of population that is immune. Strength in numbers. Do you even understand the magnitude of numbers of life on this planet?
Lastly, everything we know in history points to a warmer Earth being better for humanity. Populations have exploded during such times, crops have flourished, and humanity progressed. When times were colder, humanity dwindled, crops failed, and mass death occurred. So, even if Global Warming happened to be true (Which it isn't, considering how the Earth has been cooling by almost .8 C over the last 10 years, which basically nullifies the previous 100 years of warmth buildup), it would be a good thing. Without the greenhouse effect we would all be dead. The Earth would be a veritable frozen planet. On top of that, water vapor accounts for 99% of the Greenhouse effect. For every major climate change in the Earth's history (that we have been able to document), the link has been exclusively pointed towards the Sun's activity. The Ice Ages, the tropical climates, etc. all have been due to Sun activity. To think you or I, or humanity as a whole has any effect whatsoever on the climate is so egocentrical it is outlandish.
Ah, Global Warming, how you made this summer in Milwaukee so warm. (It's been one of the coolest summers on record)
i agree with everything except for the warmer comment.
global warming isn't about climate becoming warmer. it's about the intensities o
f the climate becoming more intense, with the average being warmer.
How do these intensities become more intense? There is no physical mechanism that would account for that, even IF we could fully understand the complexities of global climate. Which we can't. TBQH, that just sounds like something someone made up to scare ppl.
tulkas, you are mis-understanding me. i'm not saying this from my own opinion, logic, or deduction. this information is readily available from credible scientific researches that have been performed and are accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. The other .1% are the bastards getting bribed by big oil companies trying to make it seem like the scientific community is unsure.
Oh, you mean there are more scientists than population in the US? Thats news to me.
Luckily there are still foreign scientists :/ Never rely on the US to try to take care of the environment or we will all be screwed over.
Can't believe you think that the Earth can support another 6-7 billion people... I know you have cited a good deal of figures to support Earth being very underutilized, that there are more resources to go around, that African nations are in trouble only because they are embroiled in strife. You don't seem to realize that humans are not in the near future going to be able to utilize the Earth's resources in a clean and productive manner, or even in the manner that the world's highly developed nations do now.
I'm sorry, but if this is the general feeling of a large group of people I'm truly scared for the future. Science has no sides. Once you pick a side in Science it no longer is science and is, but yet another skewed practice. You might as well be practicing Alchemy because that has as much basis as science does when you have made up your mind irregardless of evidence. If you ask the leading scientists and politicians promoting Global Warming (To which they changed the moniker to Climate Change, wonder why?), if you believe that the Earth is in dire straits why are you still using modern luxuries that contribute to the problem? I'm sure more people would take it a lot more seriously if they didn't see Al Gore with a huge mansion, flying around in private jets, and owning multiple cars. When you get down to it, its politicized because they realize fear-mongering can centralize power.
That is the whole point. We can sustain 7 billion off such a minimal amount of land usage right now with inferior technology than what we will have when we reach numbers of 13-14+ billion. Don't misunderstand me when I talk about sustainability. It is not the same as there will be no poor, or no malnurished, etc. Sustainability just means that the overall Death:Birth ratio is still able to be positive.
EPT
