|
On August 06 2009 23:29 Aegraen wrote:
Look, if the Bubonic plague couldn't kill humanity off in the best of conditions for such an occurence, what makes you think a bacterial infection can wipe out 90% of the species on Earth when everything modern science tells us this is impossible. How many bacteria and virus do you know that is deadly to every species? There are none, period. It simply can't happen. You don't have to be a geneticist to know this.
someone didn't watch the video
|
On August 07 2009 00:20 food wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 15:40 Aegraen wrote:
You do know that Ice shelves and other constructs like icebergs disperse water, thereby increasing the sea level correct? .. yeah, whatever.. Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 15:40 Aegraen wrote:
You have heard of desalinization correct?
.... definitely, how could i not?.. Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 16:04 Aegraen wrote:
You are aware I am in the Coast Guard, and one of our important functions is policing EEZ's (Exclusive Economic Zones), correct? WHAT THE FUCK? the way you post is so incredibly annoying LOL
I lol'd. I dont read, or even skim, any of his posts that start so condescending.
|
|
|
sooner or later,, the world will be unsustainable.. even now there are people dying of hunger and lack basic necessities such as clean water. money might be useless in the future..
|
Didn't read past OP, but don't just decide what the "real cause of extinction is" after a 5 minute talk on TED.
|
On August 06 2009 15:11 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 15:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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) Cause Earth can easily support another 6-7 billion people. Yes, it can.
Maybe if those 6 or 7 billion live like the poorest Africans.
But if we are talking about living the American way, i doubt the Earth could sustain even one billion more people.
What would be the point of having 15 billion humans on Earth if 60% of the live below the absolute poverty line?, there would just be more suffering and wars, and as an extra we would put a massive burden in the Earth's resources.
|
On August 07 2009 01:29 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 15:11 Aegraen wrote:On August 06 2009 15:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: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) Cause Earth can easily support another 6-7 billion people. Yes, it can. Maybe if those 6 or 7 billion live like the poorest Africans. But if we are talking about living the American way, i doubt the Earth could sustain even one billion more people. What would be the point of having 15 billion humans on Earth if 60% of the live below the absolute poverty line?, there would just be more suffering and wars, and as an extra we would put a massive burden in the Earth's resources.
LOL? You didnt hear about the fish farms?
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On August 06 2009 15:29 Aegraen wrote:
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.
How is this quote not getting any love, this is seriously the best post this year
Never leave us, Aegraen.
|
United States44382 Posts
On August 06 2009 15:29 Aegraen wrote:
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)
You may not have considered this but the bits of land which people have chosen not to farm/mine/develop have less potential than the bits that they have decided to develop. People start by developing the most profitable bits of land and then move down the scale. You can't just take the best bits of land and multiply them by the total.
What you've done is comparable to taking the example of oil in Texas, saying Texas is only one of fifty states, then declaring the US energy fears over because the US now has 50x the oil it thought it did.
|
United States44382 Posts
There's a town in Britain supported by the income from tin mines. There are thousands of towns in Britain, ergo Britain could produce the worlds entire supply of tin.
|
United States44382 Posts
Majority of people in Egypt live a small strip of land by the Nile. Not many people live in the desert. Ergo Egypt could easily have 10x the population it does now.
|
Belgium9950 Posts
Don't try to argue with him, it's pointless.
|
On August 06 2009 17:26 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:This is an extremely technical area. While it is possible to have a useful discussion, I am not sure anyone here is going to gain anything significant in the way of actual scientific knowledge from reading long posts from Brood War fans banging away at their keyboards. I of course include myself in this. And members of the coast guard. The man-made climate change model is the overwhelming consensus of the relevant parts of the scientific community. There is a huge amount of disinformation spread, both intentionally and unintentionally, on this topic. Due to this, the Royal Society, perhaps Britain's most important and respected scientific institution, has issued a layman's guide to the many controversies. It addresses eight different misleading arguments put forward against the man-made climate change model, some of which have already reared their ugly heads in this thread, and attempts to clarify where the weight of scientific evidence lies: "The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science.
"This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies."Link to main page: Royal SocietyDirect link to PDF: PDF File
I can't seem to download that file, if anyone could upload it somewhere else i'd greatly appreciate it.
|
On August 06 2009 16:36 Aegraen wrote:For those of you who are going to read these, please read this first. http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/30/cei-files-epa’s-own-suppressed-report-demands-epa-global-warming-proceeding-by Christine Hall
June 30, 2009
CEI Files EPA’s Own Suppressed Report, Demands EPA Global Warming Proceeding Be Reopened
Public Should Have Right to Review, Comment on Gov’t Report
Washington, D.C., June 30, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute today is demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency allow public comment on an internal global warming report that the agency itself suppressed.
CEI is submitting the report to the EPA and formally requesting that EPA re-open the comment period on its so-called “endangerment proceeding,” so the public can comment on both the report and on EPA’s conduct. EPA’s official comment period ended June 23.
Today’s actions follow CEI’s release of internal EPA emails a week ago that demonstrated the agency cover-up, followed by a draft version of the report released last Thursday. A day later, the author of the report was given permission by the agency to release the final report but only on his own website.
“EPA sits on this report for over three months, and then only allows it to be made public on the author’s personal website,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “The fact that we have to formally re-file it with the agency indicates how unreal this situation is.”
The report criticizes the agency’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It concludes that EPA is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature. It finds that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations.
VIEW THE FINAL EPA INTERNAL REPORT
VIEW THE DRAFT REPORT
VISIT THE AUTHOR’S WEBSITE
VIEW CEI’S REQUEST TO EPA
READ CEI’S JUNE 18 PUBLIC COMMENT TO EPA ON ENDANGERMENT FINDING You can draw your own conclusions from these various sources.
Read that article but be informed where its coming from at least
cei is a libertarian "think tank" off wiki "Past and present funders include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation"
Author Bio
Christine Hall is director of communications at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Prior to joining CEI, Ms. Hall was a reporter with CNS News, where she focused on economic and political reporting. Ms. Hall also served as a policy analyst for Steve Forbes's 2000 presidential campaign, a social security policy analyst for former Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), and editor of the Seniors Coalition Advocate magazine. She holds a Juris Master from George Mason University School of Law and an undergraduate degree in history from George Mason University.
|
Okay, the post deriving carrying capacity based on inhabited land area was outlandish, comical, and reminiscent of http://xkcd.com/605/ . The rest of his posts aren't entirely unreasonable. It's disappointing that all TL decides to field in response is a host of parodies and amusements.
|
United States44382 Posts
On August 07 2009 02:10 EchOne wrote:Okay, the post deriving carrying capacity based on inhabited land area was outlandish, comical, and reminiscent of http://xkcd.com/605/ . The rest of his posts aren't entirely unreasonable. It's disappointing that all TL decides to field in response is a host of parodies and amusements.
"Just because some of the arguments he passionately puts forward are laughably stupid doesn't mean we should think less of his judgement."
When he genuinely put forward that argument which you agree with outlandish and comical as something he believed to not only be true but a well thought out argument that pretty much discounts him from being taken seriously.
|
On August 06 2009 19:03 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2009 18:49 spinesheath wrote:
So basically we have two opinons here:
1. Global Warming and all the other annoying stuff.
2. Everything's fine.
I won't even try to argue about the correctness of either. But consider the outcomes if you ignore one of the two possibilities:
Ignore number 2 and prepare for or work against Global Warming: Will cost us some resources, will be quite bothersome at times, and if there is no Global Warming at all, we just have lost a bit of our wealth.
Ignore number 1 and do as always: If Global Warming actually becomes an issue, it will hit us completely unprepared. The effects cannot really be foreseen, and possibly they will be BAD.
So, personally I'd rather be safe than sorry. No matter how wrong all those scientists might be.
Your basically giving your government unlimited power. If they say, X produces CO2 and it must be eliminated then by your belief, well its ok because what if Global Warming is true? Ack. Basically the price of every single product and good you take for granted today will skyrocket in price. It's not just about wealth, its about living standards, power of government, and creeps into every facet of life. For example, you aren't allowed to run your heat for more than 45 minutes a day in the winter to reduce CO2, so they install monitors on your home and encourage snitching by your neighbors. You think this is far-fetched? Government benevolent? Do not show such ambivalence to history. Just a few things to think about.
Did I say anything about any kind of government? No. I only said that I would want to be prepared. HOW to prepare is a different issue, and your version of a government with unlimited power may be the only possibility you can imagine, but I doubt everyone has such a limited view.
Don't expect me to carry on that discussion, though. I generally don't like arguing with people that put words in other's mouths and ignore whatever they actually were talking about.
|
Lol, see, whenever you get political all your points seem so far fetched and moot.
|
Yes, I concede the point. However, you fail to account that the sea levels would drop to due ice shelves melting, however that is off-set by land ice melting and water run-off (However, remember ice melts slow and the land does absorb and use water). In any event they cancel each other.
Secondly, I question every "reading" or ice survey conducted because of things like this.
If sea ice melts the water level stays the same. On the "how fast is the ice melting note" though it should be noted that the process of ice melting is autocatalytic because ice reflects most of the sun energy that hits it's surface while water absorbs most of the sun energy that hits it's surface. This affects sea ice more than it does land ice. However, as little pools of water start to form on top of land ice they start to melt the ice around it and below it, essentially forming tunnels in the ice that go from top to bottom. This accelerates the process of land ice flowing into the ocean where is becomes sea ice and melts even faster.
Since I haven't posted on anything else in this thread I'd just like to calm some nerves by linking this Carlin video.
|
He then links this with another interesting phenomenon involving hydrogen sulfide, and how it occurs naturally on the planet earth; hypothesising that it starts off as sediment at the floor of the ocean and sporadically rises up every age or so to the top of the ocean, causing a chain reaction which affects all life on earth--good or bad; then talks about how it will affect us.
This I can almost assuredly call BS. My professor was asked if this phenomenon poses any real threat and he replied that the amount isn't enough. If you were to blow a hydrogen bomb in the bottom of the ocean, it still wouldn't be enough to trigger a chain reaction, much less all of it spontaneously rise up out of nowhere and be separated in such a way that the chain affects the entire globe, which is HIGHLY improbable due to its low amount.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
