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.
Humans are not changing the planet. Mother Nature is changing the planet.
Humans are animals just like any other in the world. When a beaver dams a body of water, does anyone say that he is changing the planet? Of course not. We call that nature.
A few years ago some biologists were observing a pride of Lions in Africa when they collected the body of a female who had died shortly after a hunt after being attacked by Wildebeest. The scientists did an thorough examination on the body, including DNA tests. And in the process decided to do a DNA test on the fresh meal in the cat's stomach. The lioness had picked off calf and partially ate it shortly before the cat's death. And that's when something interesting turned up.
It wasn't recognized initially. Matter of fact, it almost wasn't recognized at all. But about 6 months after the DNA test was done, one particular expert heard about the test and decided to review the results for the sake of academic curiosity. To his amazement he discovered that there was a gene sequence that was not right. It couldn't be right. This particular gene sequence is universal among Wildebeest. Since nobody has thus far mapped their genome, nobody is positive what this particular gene does. All they know is that there's never been a Wildebeest whose DNA has been extracted who did not have this precisely matched gene sequence. That is, until it was found in the belly of a dead lion.
The discovery was a pretty big deal. Experts believe that it was a random mutation with evolutionary implications if the calf had survived. Again, not knowing what the gene in question does in the first place, it's impossible to guess whether this new mutation would ever spread through the gene pool. Nonetheless, it is a singularly observed deviation from a genetic marker which otherwise has been considered the single definitive identifier for an entire species. And whatever the future evolution of its species may have been, it ended when that Wildebeest calf was torn apart by a lion.
So I ask you: Are lions changing the world? Or is Mother Nature changing the world?
When someone swears by Attenborough, I am NOT automatically impressed.Actually.....read further down to my next post, ok?
OK. So you have a few whores in the scientific community. I mean, Lindzen is a real catch, testified that tobacco is harmless in front of Congress. He has tenure at MIT, and damned little else. No scientfic credibility left.
In the meantime, what scientific society supports your point of view? Give me one, even in Outer Slobovia. Same for National Academies of Science for the various nations. How about major Universities. There is as complete of a consensus among scientists on AGW as there is on evolution.
A company I worked for about 15 years ago used to have an MIT graduate P.E. in it's employ. He's was dumber than a brick. He eventually proved it to everyone in the company, and was fired. So when someone tells me they went to school at MIT, I am NOT automatically impressed.
When someone swears by Attenborough, I am NOT automatically impressed.OK. So you have a few whores in the scientific community. I mean, Lindzen is a real catch, testified that tobacco is harmless in front of Congress. He has tenure at MIT, and damned little else. No scientfic credibility left.
In the meantime, what scientific society supports your point of view? Give me one, even in Outer Slobovia. Same for National Academies of Science for the various nations. How about major Universities. There is as complete of a consensus among scientists on AGW as there is on evolution.
A company I worked for about 15 years ago used to have an MIT graduate P.E. in it's employ. He's was dumber than a brick. He eventually proved it to everyone in the company, and was fired. So when someone tells me they went to school at MIT, I am NOT automatically impressed.
Not my loss at all...When someone swears by Attenborough, I am NOT automatically impressed.A company I worked for about 15 years ago used to have an MIT graduate P.E. in it's employ. He's was dumber than a brick. He eventually proved it to everyone in the company, and was fired. So when someone tells me they went to school at MIT, I am NOT automatically impressed.
Your loss.
) must be reduced throughout the world. Reduction that, according to him, really starts with starving poorer nations that have been decimated by first world global powers
Not my loss at all...When someone swears by Attenborough, I am NOT automatically impressed.
Your loss.
the highly decorated psychopath expanded upon his notion that the plague of humanity (humans
The television presenter said that humans are threatening their own existence and that of other species by using up the worlds resources.
He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.
We are a plague on the Earth. Its coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. Its not just climate change; its sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now, he told the Radio Times.
Sir David, who is a patron of the Population Matters, has spoken out before about the frightening explosion in human numbers and the need for investment in sex education and other voluntary means of limiting population in developing countries.
We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; thats whats happening. Too many people there. They cant support themselves and its not an inhuman thing to say. Its the case. Until humanity manages to sort itself out and get a coordinated view about the planet its going to get worse and worse.
Sir David, whose landmark series are repeated from Monday on BBC2, starting with Life on Earth, has also spoken out about the change in wildlife documentaries during his lifetime.
The 86-year-old said commentary from presenters like himself are becoming less necessary as camera work is able to tell a story.
Im not sure theres any need for a new Attenborough, he said. The more you go on, the less you need people standing between you and the animal and the camera waving their arms about.
Its much cheaper to get someone in front of a camera describing animal behaviour than actually showing you [the behaviour]. That takes a much longer time. But the kind of carefully tailored programmes in which you really work at the commentary, you really match pictures to words, is a bit out of fashion now regarded as old hat.
Attacking the messenger, are we?
What Attenborough actually said in the Daily Telegraph article:
David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth - Telegraph
The television presenter said that humans are threatening their own existence and that of other species by using up the worlds resources.
He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.
We are a plague on the Earth. Its coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. Its not just climate change; its sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now, he told the Radio Times.
Sir David, who is a patron of the Population Matters, has spoken out before about the frightening explosion in human numbers and the need for investment in sex education and other voluntary means of limiting population in developing countries.
We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; thats whats happening. Too many people there. They cant support themselves and its not an inhuman thing to say. Its the case. Until humanity manages to sort itself out and get a coordinated view about the planet its going to get worse and worse.
Sir David, whose landmark series are repeated from Monday on BBC2, starting with Life on Earth, has also spoken out about the change in wildlife documentaries during his lifetime.
The 86-year-old said commentary from presenters like himself are becoming less necessary as camera work is able to tell a story.
Im not sure theres any need for a new Attenborough, he said. The more you go on, the less you need people standing between you and the animal and the camera waving their arms about.
Its much cheaper to get someone in front of a camera describing animal behaviour than actually showing you [the behaviour]. That takes a much longer time. But the kind of carefully tailored programmes in which you really work at the commentary, you really match pictures to words, is a bit out of fashion now regarded as old hat.
Nowhere in that article did he say what Anthony Gucciardi (retard of the right) claimed that he said in the article you linked. And everything Attenborough said about controlling population growth was 100% correct. Hey, we can either control it ourselves or nature will do it for us. And make no mistake, if we don't, nature surely will. And it won't be pretty.
Attacking the messenger, are we?
Nowhere in that article did he say what Anthony Gucciardi (retard of the right) claimed that he said in the article you linked. And everything Attenborough said about controlling population growth was 100% correct. Hey, we can either control it ourselves or nature will do it for us. And make no mistake, if we don't, nature surely will. And it won't be pretty.
Attacking the messenger, are we?
Turn around is fair play. You've done nothing but attack anyone not kissing up to him and his "science"
Yes it does.Nowhere in that article did he say what Anthony Gucciardi (retard of the right) claimed that he said in the article you linked. And everything Attenborough said about controlling population growth was 100% correct. Hey, we can either control it ourselves or nature will do it for us. And make no mistake, if we don't, nature surely will. And it won't be pretty.
Of course we are.
And FWIW we're not even the first species to change the earth or the earth's climate, either.
The English language makes a distinction between acts of humans and acts of all other life.
Again, you are talking policy, not the science.
Actually.....read further down to my next post, ok?
OK. So you have a few whores in the scientific community. I mean, Lindzen is a real catch, testified that tobacco is harmless in front of Congress. He has tenure at MIT, and damned little else. No scientfic credibility left.
In the meantime, what scientific society supports your point of view? Give me one, even in Outer Slobovia. Same for National Academies of Science for the various nations. How about major Universities. There is as complete of a consensus among scientists on AGW as there is on evolution.
You know.....this may well be the stoopidest thread in the history of this forum. Like saying, "Will my poop smell this morning?"
I think I come into this forum just to see the pronounced level of mental case displayed by many in here.......like a daily episode of "JACKASS". Just all kinds of irrelevant stuff that these people take so seriously.
What is really compelling is trying to figure out if they are just frauds pushing what they know is a hoax, or scarier, that they really believe this shit?
You know.....this may well be the stoopidest thread in the history of this forum. Like saying, "Will my poop smell this morning?"
I think I come into this forum just to see the pronounced level of mental case displayed by many in here.......like a daily episode of "JACKASS". Just all kinds of irrelevant stuff that these people take so seriously.
What is really compelling is trying to figure out if they are just frauds pushing what they know is a hoax, or scarier, that they really believe this shit?
