Ecology and Racism.

[Wuwei]

Excuse me for butting in. But I was watching a show about human caused global warming a while back. It was hosted by Bill Nye, the science guy. In it he was talking to somebody who used to be a college professor. As a professor, he had studied the problem of HCGW for at least 15 years. He decided to quit his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday. Which he said would happen in about 20 years. Though this next bit is a little more "iffy," I happened across an ebook on the internet that may or may not have been a true story. The author left that decision up to the reader. In it, an extraterrestrial told the author that most of the life on earth would be extinct in about 50 years. Why? Because of the exponential effect HCGW was going to have.

There is a wide spectrum of what people believe in global warming, from outright denial to catastrophic. I think the professor and extraterrestrial are too far to the catastrophic.

Suppose, at the worst, the average global temperature rises 10 C. All the ice will melt and the sea will rise considerably. But there still will be land in the north and south of the globe that can easily and comfortably support life. So the thoughts of the extraterrestrial are unfounded.

I think the professor is paranoid. He thinks a catastrophe will happen in 20 years. He will be sorry he quit his position.

This is what I think the issues are about what people are thinking. Many of those who are in outright denial are a bit daffy and don't understand the laws of physics, such as thermodynamics, or they invent their own versions. They can be discounted.

The second level is to believe that CO2 etc will lead to a temperature rise but rather slowly. A third level is belief that greenhouse gasses will have accelerations. For example, the methane hydrates on the ocean floor will start bubbling up methane as the ocean gets warmer. Permafrost starts melting and decay of the trapped vegetation will release methane.

It is known that the earth dynamics are bistable. When it is in a high temperature state, there is little ice to reflect sun energy, and there is more land to absorb it and more plants that emit CO2. That will keep the earth hot. When it is cold, there is more ice to reflect light so that less energy is absorbed. There will be fewer plants to emit CO2 and so the earth stays cold (ice age). In any one of those states the earth manages to come back to some more even state like we are in presently, but very slowly.

You will have to decide for yourself.

 

[jc456]

I found this website:

Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide

"EXPERIMENT with CENTRIFUGE MACHINE REFUTES the RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE HYPOTHESIS."

 

[krypto]

Excuse me for butting in. But I was watching a show about human caused global warming a while back. It was hosted by Bill Nye, the science guy. In it he was talking to somebody who used to be a college professor. As a professor, he had studied the problem of HCGW for at least 15 years. He decided to quit his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday. Which he said would happen in about 20 years. Though this next bit is a little more "iffy," I happened across an ebook on the internet that may or may not have been a true story. The author left that decision up to the reader. In it, an extraterrestrial told the author that most of the life on earth would be extinct in about 50 years. Why? Because of the exponential effect HCGW was going to have.

There is a wide spectrum of what people believe in global warming, from outright denial to catastrophic. I think the professor and extraterrestrial are too far to the catastrophic.

Suppose, at the worst, the average global temperature rises 10 C. All the ice will melt and the sea will rise considerably. But there still will be land in the north and south of the globe that can easily and comfortably support life. So the thoughts of the extraterrestrial are unfounded.

I think the professor is paranoid. He thinks a catastrophe will happen in 20 years. He will be sorry he quit his position.

This is what I think the issues are about what people are thinking. Many of those who are in outright denial are a bit daffy and don't understand the laws of physics, such as thermodynamics, or they invent their own versions. They can be discounted.

The second level is to believe that CO2 etc will lead to a temperature rise but rather slowly. A third level is belief that greenhouse gasses will have accelerations. For example, the methane hydrates on the ocean floor will start bubbling up methane as the ocean gets warmer. Permafrost starts melting and decay of the trapped vegetation will release methane.

It is known that the earth dynamics are bistable. When it is in a high temperature state, there is little ice to reflect sun energy, and there is more land to absorb it and more plants that emit CO2. That will keep the earth hot. When it is cold, there is more ice to reflect light so that less energy is absorbed. There will be fewer plants to emit CO2 and so the earth stays cold (ice age). In any one of those states the earth manages to come back to some more even state like we are in presently, but very slowly.

You will have to decide for yourself.

I had already decided long before I saw the TV show about HCGW and the professor who quit his job. There are many things that can have an exponential effect. No doubt HCGW is one of them. And by the time people are forced to admit the fact, it will be too late. Almost certainly another Permain extinction will follow. And it isn't just increased methane release from warmer temperatures that will be to blame. Our country is promoting natural gas. But our natural gas distribution network is leaky. In terms of greenhouse gases, we would have been better off sticking to coal.

But there is a more important thing that leads me to the exponential effect. Which is that it is already happening. I will include some graphs. Ecah of them has "exponential" written all over them.

 

[krypto]

I found this website:

Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide

"EXPERIMENT with CENTRIFUGE MACHINE REFUTES the RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE HYPOTHESIS."

Everybody knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I would have to doubt any experiment that said otherwise. It is also well known that methane is around 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than just CO2.;

 

[jc456]

I found this website:

Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide

"EXPERIMENT with CENTRIFUGE MACHINE REFUTES the RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE HYPOTHESIS."

Everybody knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I would have to doubt any experiment that said otherwise. It is also well known that methane is around 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than just CO2.;

dude than post up that experiment. I presented mine.

 

[krypto]

I found this website:

Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide

"EXPERIMENT with CENTRIFUGE MACHINE REFUTES the RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE HYPOTHESIS."

Everybody knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I would have to doubt any experiment that said otherwise. It is also well known that methane is around 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than just CO2.;

dude than post up that experiment. I presented mine.

Two poste up, I showed a bunch of graphs. Something is going on. If it isn't CO2, then what is it. I am not a scientist. So I don't have all the knowledge necessary to refute an obviously flawed experiment. Until the consensus of most scientists is that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I will continue to believe that it is. No matter what any so called experiment says.

 

[Crick]

Not the best reasoning I've ever seen, but you've more or less come to the proper answer. Now how about racism?

 

[jc456]

I found this website:

Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide

"EXPERIMENT with CENTRIFUGE MACHINE REFUTES the RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE HYPOTHESIS."

Everybody knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I would have to doubt any experiment that said otherwise. It is also well known that methane is around 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than just CO2.;

dude than post up that experiment. I presented mine.

Two poste up, I showed a bunch of graphs. Something is going on. If it isn't CO2, then what is it. I am not a scientist. So I don't have all the knowledge necessary to refute an obviously flawed experiment. Until the consensus of most scientists is that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I will continue to believe that it is. No matter what any so called experiment says.

Well one doesn't need to be a scientist. Read

 

[Crick]

Jesus, JC, do you somehow make yourself MORE stupid with each passing day?

I can collect some CO2 in a pyrex container and pop it in my oven where it will heat nicely with a good lasagna. Do you think that proves there is no greenhouse effect? Why would being able to heat gases in one manner refute the ability to heat them in another? You seem to want to bring back SSDD's ignorant fantasy that static pressure constantly creates heat. Do you REALLY want to say that JC? Are the bottom of your feet on fire?

 

[jc456]

Jesus, JC, do you somehow make yourself MORE stupid with each passing day?

I can collect some CO2 in a pyrex container and pop it in my oven where it will heat nicely with a good lasagna. Do you think that proves there is no greenhouse effect? Why would being able to heat gases in one manner refute the ability to heat them in another? You seem to want to bring back SSDD's ignorant fantasy that static pressure constantly creates heat. Do you REALLY want to say that JC? Are the bottom of your feet on fire?

Crick tell me how you think the surface gets warmer than the sun and LWIR.

 

[Crick]

You believe the surface of the Earth is warmer than the sun?

 

[krypto]

Not the best reasoning I've ever seen, but you've more or less come to the proper answer. Now how about racism?

Do you REALLY want to talk about racism? I already pointed out that the population of Whites isn't rising. But every single day thare are about 228,000 more people on the planet than there was the day before. And there are already too many people on the planet for it to sustainably support. Tell me how White people can confront that issue without either being 'racist" or committing hari kari.

Also, even babies have been shown to be "bigoted." Another thing is that what you call "racism" wouldn't even exist unless there was a useful and necessary evloutionary reason for it. If there is more you want to discuss about "racism," just let me know.

 

[krypto]

I found this website:

Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide

"EXPERIMENT with CENTRIFUGE MACHINE REFUTES the RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE HYPOTHESIS."

Everybody knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I would have to doubt any experiment that said otherwise. It is also well known that methane is around 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than just CO2.;

dude than post up that experiment. I presented mine.

Two poste up, I showed a bunch of graphs. Something is going on. If it isn't CO2, then what is it. I am not a scientist. So I don't have all the knowledge necessary to refute an obviously flawed experiment. Until the consensus of most scientists is that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I will continue to believe that it is. No matter what any so called experiment says.

Well one doesn't need to be a scientist. Read

I know that there is a certain amount of heat that the earth absorbes from the sun and a certain amount that it radates back into space through infared radaition. But if you looked at the graphs I showed, you can see that something is out of whack. All the volcanoes on earth each year release an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. The activities of humans each year are responsible for the release of 26.8 BILLION tons. And things started going bad at the beginning of the industrial revolution. It doesn't take a genus to figure out that the thing that is out of whack is humanity.

 

[jc456]

I found this website:

Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide

"EXPERIMENT with CENTRIFUGE MACHINE REFUTES the RADIATIVE GREENHOUSE HYPOTHESIS."

Everybody knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I would have to doubt any experiment that said otherwise. It is also well known that methane is around 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than just CO2.;

dude than post up that experiment. I presented mine.

Two poste up, I showed a bunch of graphs. Something is going on. If it isn't CO2, then what is it. I am not a scientist. So I don't have all the knowledge necessary to refute an obviously flawed experiment. Until the consensus of most scientists is that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I will continue to believe that it is. No matter what any so called experiment says.

Well one doesn't need to be a scientist. Read

I know that there is a certain amount of heat that the earth absorbes from the sun and a certain amount that it radates back into space through infared radaition. But if you looked at the graphs I showed, you can see that something is out of whack. All the volcanoes on earth each year release an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. The activities of humans each year are responsible for the release of 26.8 BILLION tons. And things started going bad at the beginning of the industrial revolution. It doesn't take a genus to figure out that the thing that is out of whack is humanity.

What is the percentage in the atmosphere of CO2?

 

[Unkotare]

Not the best reasoning I've ever seen, but you've more or less come to the proper answer. Now how about racism?

.... And there are already too many people on the planet for it to sustainably support. ...

Wrong.

 

[Crick]

Not the best reasoning I've ever seen, but you've more or less come to the proper answer. Now how about racism?

Do you REALLY want to talk about racism? I already pointed out that the population of Whites isn't rising. But every single day thare are about 228,000 more people on the planet than there was the day before. And there are already too many people on the planet for it to sustainably support. Tell me how White people can confront that issue without either being 'racist" or committing hari kari.

Also, even babies have been shown to be "bigoted." Another thing is that what you call "racism" wouldn't even exist unless there was a useful and necessary evloutionary reason for it. If there is more you want to discuss about "racism," just let me know.

Regarding your views on evolution, would you care to explain why humans still suffer from a wide variety of diseases? Why haven't we developed immunity to them all?

And I asked you why we should be concerned about the population of whites. You gave no answer. Care to try?

 

[krypto]

Everybody knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I would have to doubt any experiment that said otherwise. It is also well known that methane is around 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than just CO2.;

dude than post up that experiment. I presented mine.

Two poste up, I showed a bunch of graphs. Something is going on. If it isn't CO2, then what is it. I am not a scientist. So I don't have all the knowledge necessary to refute an obviously flawed experiment. Until the consensus of most scientists is that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, I will continue to believe that it is. No matter what any so called experiment says.

Well one doesn't need to be a scientist. Read

I know that there is a certain amount of heat that the earth absorbes from the sun and a certain amount that it radates back into space through infared radaition. But if you looked at the graphs I showed, you can see that something is out of whack. All the volcanoes on earth each year release an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. The activities of humans each year are responsible for the release of 26.8 BILLION tons. And things started going bad at the beginning of the industrial revolution. It doesn't take a genus to figure out that the thing that is out of whack is humanity.

What is the percentage in the atmosphere of CO2?

What percentage is nitrogen.

 

[krypto]

Not the best reasoning I've ever seen, but you've more or less come to the proper answer. Now how about racism?

Do you REALLY want to talk about racism? I already pointed out that the population of Whites isn't rising. But every single day thare are about 228,000 more people on the planet than there was the day before. And there are already too many people on the planet for it to sustainably support. Tell me how White people can confront that issue without either being 'racist" or committing hari kari.

Also, even babies have been shown to be "bigoted." Another thing is that what you call "racism" wouldn't even exist unless there was a useful and necessary evloutionary reason for it. If there is more you want to discuss about "racism," just let me know.

Regarding your views on evolution, would you care to explain why humans still suffer from a wide variety of diseases? Why haven't we developed immunity to them all?

And I asked you why we should be concerned about the population of whites. You gave no answer. Care to try?

Is asking stupid baby questions going to get you anywhere? How many generations of mice have there been compared to generations of humans. Then, how many generations of some pathogen have there been compared to the generations of humans.

Next, basically, humans = pollution. As well as many other environmentally unfriendly things. And despite what morons like Unkotare may care to believe, there are already too many people on the planet for it to sustainably support. Why you should be concerned about the population of Whites is because that population isn't rising. In some places, it may even be going down a little. But I explained all this in my thread. Did you not read it? Or are you looking for an answer to something else.

 

[Crick]

Not the best reasoning I've ever seen, but you've more or less come to the proper answer. Now how about racism?

Do you REALLY want to talk about racism? I already pointed out that the population of Whites isn't rising. But every single day thare are about 228,000 more people on the planet than there was the day before. And there are already too many people on the planet for it to sustainably support. Tell me how White people can confront that issue without either being 'racist" or committing hari kari.

Also, even babies have been shown to be "bigoted." Another thing is that what you call "racism" wouldn't even exist unless there was a useful and necessary evloutionary reason for it. If there is more you want to discuss about "racism," just let me know.

Regarding your views on evolution, would you care to explain why humans still suffer from a wide variety of diseases? Why haven't we developed immunity to them all?

And I asked you why we should be concerned about the population of whites. You gave no answer. Care to try?

Is asking stupid baby questions going to get you anywhere?

I don't know. But asking these might.

How many generations of mice have there been compared to generations of humans.

Your rhetoric is meaningless. Your previous comments indicate that you believe all human characteristics, biological, behavioral and sociological, were created by evolution and were thus in the individual's best interests. Surely it would be in the individual's best interest to be immune to disease. Why, then, are we not immune to all of them?

Then, how many generations of some pathogen have there been compared to the generations of humans.

You're babbling.

Next, basically, humans = pollution. As well as many other environmentally unfriendly things.

Your point is obvious, but your logic is severely flawed. Are humans working to make things better = pollution?

And despite what morons like Unkotare may care to believe, there are already too many people on the planet for it to sustainably support.

The planet is currently sustaining its population. Obviously, some consume more than their fair share of resources and many consume (are able to consume) less. I think the world could continue to support people with the lifestyle of your typical rural Asian indefinitely. It could not sustainably support our current population if they all lived like you or I.

Why you should be concerned about the population of Whites is because that population isn't rising. In some places, it may even be going down a little. But I explained all this in my thread. Did you not read it? Or are you looking for an answer to something else.

I am looking for the answer to my question which this repetition does not provide. Again, why should we care that the population of whites is going down?

 

[krypto]

Not the best reasoning I've ever seen, but you've more or less come to the proper answer. Now how about racism?

Do you REALLY want to talk about racism? I already pointed out that the population of Whites isn't rising. But every single day thare are about 228,000 more people on the planet than there was the day before. And there are already too many people on the planet for it to sustainably support. Tell me how White people can confront that issue without either being 'racist" or committing hari kari.

Also, even babies have been shown to be "bigoted." Another thing is that what you call "racism" wouldn't even exist unless there was a useful and necessary evloutionary reason for it. If there is more you want to discuss about "racism," just let me know.

Regarding your views on evolution, would you care to explain why humans still suffer from a wide variety of diseases? Why haven't we developed immunity to them all?

And I asked you why we should be concerned about the population of whites. You gave no answer. Care to try?

Is asking stupid baby questions going to get you anywhere?

I don't know. But asking these might.

How many generations of mice have there been compared to generations of humans.

Your rhetoric is meaningless. Your previous comments indicate that you believe all human characteristics, biological, behavioral and sociological, were created by evolution and were thus in the individual's best interests. Surely it would be in the individual's best interest to be immune to disease. Why, then, are we not immune to all of them?

Then, how many generations of some pathogen have there been compared to the generations of humans.

You're babbling.

Next, basically, humans = pollution. As well as many other environmentally unfriendly things.

Your point is obvious, but your logic is severely flawed. Are humans working to make things better = pollution?

And despite what morons like Unkotare may care to believe, there are already too many people on the planet for it to sustainably support.

The planet is currently sustaining its population. Obviously, some consume more than their fair share of resources and many consume (are able to consume) less. I think the world could continue to support people with the lifestyle of your typical rural Asian indefinitely. It could not sustainably support our current population if they all lived like you or I.

Why you should be concerned about the population of Whites is because that population isn't rising. In some places, it may even be going down a little. But I explained all this in my thread. Did you not read it? Or are you looking for an answer to something else.

I am looking for the answer to my question which this repetition does not provide. Again, why should we care that the population of whites is going down?

First, why don't you just ask why any disease effects any creature. That's just the way things are. Also, that pathogens go through many generations in the timespan of a human generation isn't babbling. Evolution happens over many generations. If you are a germ that has gone through a zillion generations compared to our one means a greater likelihood of them out evolving our defences. Admittedly, there are symbiotic germs that live in us that help us fight disease. But in terms of a human, we are far out paced in terms of how many generations there are in a given amount of time.

Next, there is more profit to be made from creating pollution than there is in stopping it. So humans = pollution. Next, there are food wars going on. And people are starving in many places. That is the opposite of sustainable. The fish stocks in the oceans are also being decimated. Another thing is that I hear that bees are responsible for one bite of food out of three that you eat. And bees are disappearing. In some places in China, they have to pollinate some fruit bearing trees by hand.

Also, many in Western countries, we do seem to live a little "high off the hog." But with most developed countries not contributing to overpopualtion, they should be allowed that leeway to some degree. Another thing is that talking about some Asain tending a rice patty or some such thing is the other extreme. There needs to be a middle ground. But with non-white populations rising, that isn't likely.

Next, why should you be concerned "if" the population of Whites is declining? Well for one, because Whites are the best kinds of people. If you don't believe that, somebody around here started a thread called, "Is the White species superior?" I suggest you look it up and read it. You don't want there to be fewer of what is better. Also, if the number of Whites was to decline, it might not be so bad if they weren't being replaced with non-whites.

But all that aside, you are asking the wrong question. It isn't if the number of Whites was to decline, how bad would it be. The question you should be asking yourself is that if the population of non-whites was rising, which it is, why is that a bad thing.