Liberals have this thing about population control. they think the planet is crowded too many people
And you don't?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Liberals have this thing about population control. they think the planet is crowded too many people
Liberals have this thing about population control. they think the planet is crowded too many people
And you don't?
Liberals have this thing about population control. they think the planet is crowded too many people
And you don't?
And most of them would be dead within a month.
Jroc illustrates why no member of the denier cult should ever be allowed to form public policy. The consequences of their complete lack of common sense would be catastrophic and genocidal.
Liberals have this thing about population control. they think the planet is crowded too many people
And you don't?
No, we don't. The fact is it is quite the opposite.
You should be missionary, but there are not too many people in the worldLiberals have this thing about population control. they think the planet is crowded too many people
And you don't?
No, we don't. The fact is it is quite the opposite.
So... everyone has secure shelter and good food and clean water and gets a good education and medical care, right? There are no shortages of housing or food or water or medical resources. Everyone has a good life because there aren't too many people, right?
What do you think, roughly, would be the limits, given current technology? How high would the world's population have to get before you'd start to be concerned? It's currently in excess of 7.125 billion.
World population - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Liberals have this thing about population control. they think the planet is crowded too many people
And you don't?
No, we don't. The fact is it is quite the opposite.
So... everyone has secure shelter and good food and clean water and gets a good education and medical care, right? There are no shortages of housing or food or water or medical resources. Everyone has a good life because there aren't too many people, right?
What do you think, roughly, would be the limits, given current technology? How high would the world's population have to get before you'd start to be concerned? It's currently in excess of 7.125 billion.
World population - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You should be missionary, but there are not too many people in the world
Liberals have this thing about population control. they think the planet is crowded too many people
And you don't?
No, we don't. The fact is it is quite the opposite.
So... everyone has secure shelter and good food and clean water and gets a good education and medical care, right? There are no shortages of housing or food or water or medical resources. Everyone has a good life because there aren't too many people, right?
What do you think, roughly, would be the limits, given current technology? How high would the world's population have to get before you'd start to be concerned? It's currently in excess of 7.125 billion.
World population - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You should be missionary, but there are not too many people in the world
On what do you base that? Are there no shortages? Does everyone have what they need?
Liberals have this thing about population control. they think the planet is crowded too many people
And you don't?
No, we don't. The fact is it is quite the opposite.
So... everyone has secure shelter and good food and clean water and gets a good education and medical care, right? There are no shortages of housing or food or water or medical resources. Everyone has a good life because there aren't too many people, right?
What do you think, roughly, would be the limits, given current technology? How high would the world's population have to get before you'd start to be concerned? It's currently in excess of 7.125 billion.
World population - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
And most of them would be dead within a month.
Jroc illustrates why no member of the denier cult should ever be allowed to form public policy. The consequences of their complete lack of common sense would be catastrophic and genocidal.
Henry, you know by now that you're lying your ass off, and that your lies would kill millions.
What does it say about you as a person that you'd rather see millions die than admit your error?
One 2-second search...Nonsense. The onus is on YOU and the DENIERS to point to a verified illegitimate one. I'm not just talking about an accusation because anyone can accuse someone of something. But accusations of a breach of scientific ethics brings on reviews and investigations which are then published. Scientists are sticklers for that kind of thing since, unlike pundits and talk radio hosts, scientists' careers hinge on their professional reputations.
Actually, her book simply came to many wrong conclusions.Do not the tens of thousands of deaths caused by Carson's book make her a serial killer? Dead because of diseases carried by mosquitoes that would never have been hatched had she not spread panic over the only effective tool to combat them.
What is it that GH gases do again?nobody cares s0n........
Nobody cares about the science. Apparently, that offends some people. Americans haven't cared about global warming for some years now.
And anyway......... More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Well, the so-called climate change 'debate' that's being played out in the media and on public forums is not really relevant as far as a factual analysis is concerned since professionals (like scientists and engineers) don't change their views about scientific fact or engineering truths based on the popular opinions of nonprofessionals. But it's true that public opinion could delay action. After all, nobody really wants the fossil fuel party to end. But there is NO real scientific debate at this point. It's been over for some time now. The question is whether or not the human race will rise to the challenge.
My personal belief is the answer to that question is probably not until it's already too late. Between our individual and collective greed, and a general unwillingness of the vast majority of people to make the kind of sacrifices that would be necessary to really turn things around, and the population growth rate, and current trends in all kinds of different areas, and the fact that past CO2 emissions will continue to affect the climate for another 100 years because that's the way it works, AND the fact that there are upwards of 180 governments in the world that all have wildly divergent priorities and agendas, I think that we'll dawdle until the tipping point has long passed.
At that point, it's going to be a wild (but long) race to try to adapt to the coming changes which is ultimately going to get VERY ugly much like the rush for the lifeboats once it becomes obvious that the ship you're on IS going to sink. I mean, a lot of people might stand around with their hands in their pockets as long as they think there's plenty of life boats and plenty of room, but when they see there isn't, they're attitudes will change. Once people start fighting over water and arable land and any other resources considered absolutely necessary to maintain a higher standard of living (or to just keep on living, period), our descendants are going to end up getting a much closer look at Darwin's laws of natural selection (some would say laws of the jungle) than our species has personally witnessed in at least several thousand years.
A lot of people don't realize it, but Darwin wasn't the first to use the phrase 'survival of the fittest.' That was Herbert Spencer. At any rate, at some point, cooperation between countries is probably going to break down. And depending on how things shake out, even people within the same countries are going to adopt an 'every-man-for-himself' attitude since the social veneer that most of us take completely for granted is far more tenuous than a lot of people assume. I think it's going to be a real free for all in the future. As for me, I'm glad I won't be around to see it.
Zero real scientific evidence has been produced that proves CO2 drives climate.
The work to establish a connection between CO2 and climate was done way back in the 19th century by John Tyndall.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
You haven't even read the original paper have you? The work that was done merely showed that CO2 was a GHG.