Science and Global Warming

[editec]

Well, I don't think that global warming is a myth.
In fact, I believe the planet has gone through numerous cycles of warming and cooling. This is just the first time that government has found a way to tax us for it.

Oh, okay.

I guess I was confused by your previous post, then.

My apologies.

 

[Chris]

Oh, and NASA studies outer space, not the world so they are just as equiped and reliable as P&T to gather information on the matter.

Satellite photos don't lie.

Only people lie.

 

[alan1]

Oh, okay.

I guess I was confused by your previous post, then.

My apologies.

I was just about to give you a hard time.

 

[Old Rocks]

The really stupid thing is, I know humanity is driving itself extinct, it's just that "global warming" (the phrase) itself isn't even close to accurate and any scientist who claims it is, is just jumping on a band wagon and looking for their 15 minutes, no more. "Meteorological Chaos" is more descriptive and much more accurate, but even then it's a small problem compared to others we are facing. The sad thing is that you environuts are looking at a very natural event and using that instead of looking at the real problem, much less seeking a real solution, the real solution would be immoral by your views anyway so you instead look for a very ineffective solution by using your own idiotic label. P&T only address the "global warming" scare, but they also (if one pays attention to other people instead of looking at a few biased sources) address the other real issues that you deny.

OK, Kitten, would you do me a favor and describe exactly what this natural event is? And what is this real solution that is immoral by views? And what issues are we denying? You have a lot of verbage there without a single solid peice of information on which to ascertain just what the hell you are talking about.

 

[KittenKoder]

Except the government is NOT taxing us for it.

Aside from that, your conspiracy theory to explain the so-called myth of global warming has tremendous merit.

Um ... where do you think the money for all those recycling programs comes from? They make no profits and cost a fortune to operate.

 

[KittenKoder]

OK, Kitten, would you do me a favor and describe exactly what this natural event is? And what is this real solution that is immoral by views? And what issues are we denying? You have a lot of verbage there without a single solid peice of information on which to ascertain just what the hell you are talking about.

*sigh* Repeating myself is annoying. The natural event is the chaotic weather patterns that go through cycles, we know of several causes, one being solar activity the other axial tilt of the planet (it's not static and shifts). As for what the problem is, it's over population plain and simple, and all solutions to that are immoral according to both sides, so we are doomed.

Here's a simple connection for you: As individuals we are producing less pollution per person than we did 50 years ago, however the total amount of pollution is higher.

 

[AllieBaba]

The really stupid thing is, I know humanity is driving itself extinct, it's just that "global warming" (the phrase) itself isn't even close to accurate and any scientist who claims it is, is just jumping on a band wagon and looking for their 15 minutes, no more. "Meteorological Chaos" is more descriptive and much more accurate, but even then it's a small problem compared to others we are facing. The sad thing is that you environuts are looking at a very natural event and using that instead of looking at the real problem, much less seeking a real solution, the real solution would be immoral by your views anyway so you instead look for a very ineffective solution by using your own idiotic label. P&T only address the "global warming" scare, but they also (if one pays attention to other people instead of looking at a few biased sources) address the other real issues that you deny.

Er...if we're driving ourselves extinct, how come there are so many more of us than there used to be?

Does this make sense to anyone at all?

KK, you're a Peta nutjob, aren't you? Kill the people, let the animals rule the earth and all that...right?

 

[Old Rocks]

*sigh* Repeating myself is annoying. The natural event is the chaotic weather patterns that go through cycles, we know of several causes, one being solar activity the other axial tilt of the planet (it's not static and shifts). As for what the problem is, it's over population plain and simple, and all solutions to that are immoral according to both sides, so we are doomed.

Here's a simple connection for you: As individuals we are producing less pollution per person than we did 50 years ago, however the total amount of pollution is higher.

For the last 50 years, there has been no appreciable increase in total solar irradiance. The Milankovic Cycles are not short term cycles. They are having no affect at all on what we are currently observing.

While a population half or one quarter of what we currently have would be a much more livable world, there is no reason that we cannot sustain our present population in much better circumstances than most are presently enjoying. We just have to do it differantly that we are at present time.

 

[KittenKoder]

For the last 50 years, there has been no appreciable increase in total solar irradiance. The Milankovic Cycles are not short term cycles. They are having no affect at all on what we are currently observing.

While a population half or one quarter of what we currently have would be a much more livable world, there is no reason that we cannot sustain our present population in much better circumstances than most are presently enjoying. We just have to do it differantly that we are at present time.

Thanks for proving my point about not wanting to face the real problem.

 

[KittenKoder]

Er...if we're driving ourselves extinct, how come there are so many more of us than there used to be?

Does this make sense to anyone at all?

KK, you're a Peta nutjob, aren't you? Kill the people, let the animals rule the earth and all that...right?

Allie, you really know so little about the real world, why not let the thinkers handle this and go back into your mythical world ... mmmkay. Anytime a population exceeds the amount of space for it's food source it will become extinct. Should the species that the food source relies on die, then so to will the food source.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thanks for proving my point about not wanting to face the real problem.

No, Kitten, I am specifically addressing the problem. Look at the number of wealthy nations that have ZPG. Some even have negative numbers. As people realize that having fewer children will benefit them personally, as the methods of birth control are used world wide, there will be more nations achieving ZPG. A nation whose citizens acheive a reasonable living standard, and a decent level of education, immediatly begins to move toward ZPG.

Now what other solution do you suggest? A decimation of the population? Or just selected parts of the population?

 

[KittenKoder]

No, Kitten, I am specifically addressing the problem. Look at the number of wealthy nations that have ZPG. Some even have negative numbers. As people realize that having fewer children will benefit them personally, as the methods of birth control are used world wide, there will be more nations achieving ZPG. A nation whose citizens acheive a reasonable living standard, and a decent level of education, immediatly begins to move toward ZPG.

Now what other solution do you suggest? A decimation of the population? Or just selected parts of the population?

Those are small nations whose total populations barely match the US, much less China or Russia. Also there are not that many compared to those like ours who just keep growing and too few are dying. Try again.

 

[Old Rocks]

Those are small nations whose total populations barely match the US, much less China or Russia. Also there are not that many compared to those like ours who just keep growing and too few are dying. Try again.

In the past, populations were controled by disease and starvation. Which do you prefer?

 

[KittenKoder]

In the past, populations were controled by disease and starvation. Which do you prefer?

Well ... that's the point. The only viable solutions would be to discard most of our medical science or use another method (all of which have been deemed immoral when any other nation attempts it, China for example). I say just sterilize people at birth and give out licenses to create children. But then that's been called immoral by many people to. It's a no win situation while people continue to deny the real root of the problem, so meh. Let humanity drive itself extinct, when cannibalism becomes a requirement to survive all I'll do is laugh at the species.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well ... that's the point. The only viable solutions would be to discard most of our medical science or use another method (all of which have been deemed immoral when any other nation attempts it, China for example). I say just sterilize people at birth and give out licenses to create children. But then that's been called immoral by many people to. It's a no win situation while people continue to deny the real root of the problem, so meh. Let humanity drive itself extinct, when cannibalism becomes a requirement to survive all I'll do is laugh at the species.

OK, I understand where you are coming from.