Political Crossfire Forums

[ieatfood]

Headrattle wrote: Keep in mind that even when it "plateaus" it is still growing. There won't be a point when we just have the same population (more or less.) Either our population will continue to grow or it will start receding because of something bad like famine or war or disease. However I don't believe that it will stop growing. I find it interesting that we are supposed to find new ways to conserve our resources or create new ones, but new medicines and other health technologies won't decrease the death rate. Sounds a bit odd to me.

if you remember in math, the infinite sum of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +.... is a finite number (namely, 1)
just because something is constantly increasing doesnt mean that it doesnt have an upper limit.

If population plateau's, the upper limit will be around 10-11 billion.

are you saying that new medicines don't extend life?
are you aware of what life expectancy was 100 years ago?

[eynon]

[Bible]Monkey wrote: Wow. I hope they changed the locks on the microbiology lab at the University of Texas. If you see this guy with a test tube in his hand, run.

It looks like ole Dr Evil with a glass of Ebola and soda is putting the moves on that sweet innocent Coed there.



funny I imagined him looking more like this:

[Headrattle]

ieatfood wrote: if you remember in math, the infinite sum of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +.... is a finite number (namely, 1)
just because something is constantly increasing doesnt mean that it doesnt have an upper limit.

If population plateau's, the upper limit will be around 10-11 billion.

But there would have to be reasons for the birth rate/death rate balance to start to equal each other.

Quote: are you saying that new medicines don't extend life?
are you aware of what life expectancy was 100 years ago?
No, I was pointing out how silly it sounds to say that new science will fix our resource problems but won't decrease the death rate or increase the life expenctancy. It seems like madness. Of course, new science will decrease the death rate and increase the life expectancy. I am pointing out why saying that the population plateauing sounds silly to me. If you have an increasing lifespan, decreasing death rate and a stable birth rate, why wouldn't the population keep growing? Even a stable birth rate would mean a large increase in population. What are the modifiers that are supposed to be decreasing the birthrate?

[Gnostic]

Demonic Spoon wrote: lucidnightmare wrote: Oh please.Radical environmentalism.


As we all know, absolutely EVERYTHING falls on the left/right scale, doesn't it? The left/right scale is bulls**t, and judging all of someone's political views based on one is naive.


As to the other points...

WE ARE FAR FROM OVERPOPULATED. The whole world's population could live in the state of Texas, with a lot of room left over.

Literally piled on top of each other, breathing in a noxious smog soup daily as they wheeze about on massively congested streets, as resources like parks and trees and beaches are taken over for eminent domain?

The world can't sustain another 10 billion people, that should be obvious, and the momentum of human procreation will guarantee a constant increase in population alone regardless of actual number of births declining for well over the forseeable future, simple mathematics.

[ieatfood]

Headrattle wrote:
No, I was pointing out how silly it sounds to say that new science will fix our resource problems but won't decrease the death rate or increase the life expenctancy. It seems like madness. Of course, new science will decrease the death rate and increase the life expectancy. I am pointing out why saying that the population plateauing sounds silly to me. If you have an increasing lifespan, decreasing death rate and a stable birth rate, why wouldn't the population keep growing? Even a stable birth rate would mean a large increase in population. What are the modifiers that are supposed to be decreasing the birthrate?


I don't know the modifiers--I don't know anything about birth or death rates or life expectancy. That's why I'm not a population expert hired by the UN. But there do exist people who are population experts. And I assume that they know more about this than you. And their best guess is that it's going to plateau. And you know what? I trust them more than I trust you. It's really that simple.

[ieatfood]

Gnostic wrote:

The world can't sustain another 10 billion people, that should be obvious,

have you ever been to Canada?

[Gnostic]

ieatfood wrote: Gnostic wrote:

The world can't sustain another 10 billion people, that should be obvious,

have you ever been to Canada?

Yes. And I live in Alaska. But, what's the point of the question?

If it's available land, sure, there's lots of remote areas with hundreds of miles of land. But most of it is unaccessible, and extremely expensive to develop. But that's not the issue. The issue with over-population is pollution and the using up of natural resources like fossil fuels and lumber.

But one good thing may come of it all. With the way global warming trends seem to be going, soon Canada and Alaska will resemble sub-tropical zones, with a summer year-round. The air will be un-breathable, but I'm sure that's nothing a self contained oxygen suit would'nt cure, as the wealthy and ruling class look to Mars when this rock becomes totally uninhabitable.

[Phædrus]

Headrattle wrote: [...]


[...] Of course, new science will decrease the death rate and increase the life expectancy. [...]


Why are you so sure that new science will decrease the death rate and increase life excpectancy?

The fact that life expectancy today is longer than it was a hundred years ago has more to do with advances in sanitation and sensible attitudes to hygiene rather than advances in science.

Do you think that "new science" will solve the planet's population problem?

[BastionOfSanity]

lucidnightmare wrote: Oh please.Radical environmentalism.

The Nazis were environementalists and believed in mass extermination of human life. Are they left-wing, too?

[ieatfood]

Gnostic wrote:
The issue with over-population is pollution and the using up of natural resources like fossil fuels and lumber.

But one good thing may come of it all. With the way global warming trends seem to be going, soon Canada and Alaska will resemble sub-tropical zones, with a summer year-round. The air will be un-breathable, but I'm sure that's nothing a self contained oxygen suit would'nt cure, as the wealthy and ruling class look to Mars when this rock becomes totally uninhabitable.

In 100 years, we won't be using any fossils fuels, and likely won't really depend on lumber.

As for you second paragraph, I think you've been watching too many sci-fi movies. You know, there's something called "make-believe." Not everything you see in the movie theater is actuall real. Maybe you never learned that as a kid?

[ieatfood]

Phædrus wrote:

Do you think that "new science" will solve the planet's population problem?

Actually, the "planet" doesn't have a population problem. Countries like the US, western Europe, Japan--don't have anything to worry about.

It's really a problem more in poor Asian/African countries.

[Headrattle]

ieatfood wrote: I don't know the modifiers--I don't know anything about birth or death rates or life expectancy. That's why I'm not a population expert hired by the UN. But there do exist people who are population experts. And I assume that they know more about this than you. And their best guess is that it's going to plateau. And you know what? I trust them more than I trust you. It's really that simple.

The problem is that I can't find those modifiers. And that seems like important information that shouldn't be missing. I would like to understand where they got this from rather then just trusting them.

[Gnostic]

ieatfood wrote: Gnostic wrote:
The issue with over-population is pollution and the using up of natural resources like fossil fuels and lumber.

But one good thing may come of it all. With the way global warming trends seem to be going, soon Canada and Alaska will resemble sub-tropical zones, with a summer year-round. The air will be un-breathable, but I'm sure that's nothing a self contained oxygen suit would'nt cure, as the wealthy and ruling class look to Mars when this rock becomes totally uninhabitable.

In 100 years, we won't be using any fossils fuels, and likely won't really depend on lumber.

As for you second paragraph, I think you've been watching too many sci-fi movies. You know, there's something called "make-believe." Not everything you see in the movie theater is actuall real. Maybe you never learned that as a kid?

You could say that in 100 years we will finally have invented a new energy technology. Problem is, we don't have 100 years. Another 100 years at present pollution and ozone depletion and global warming levels, and we'll be living in one giant cesspit of carbon monoxide and tidal waves. Ever wonder why it seems the summers are getting warmer and warmer each year? Why all the glaciers are receding rapidly? Why we're getting slammed with one weather disaster after another like Katrina?

Far as the second part of my post goes, where in hell do you think any of it is Hollywood? Are you even aware that NASA has been studying the viability of human habitation on Mars for years now? NASA and other governmental scientific communities have been seriously funded to study this problem for a long time


http://science.hq.nasa.gov/directorate/index.html

Get over yourself and do some resaerch before you accuse people of using fantasy in thier posts.

[ieatfood]

Headrattle wrote: ieatfood wrote: I don't know the modifiers--I don't know anything about birth or death rates or life expectancy. That's why I'm not a population expert hired by the UN. But there do exist people who are population experts. And I assume that they know more about this than you. And their best guess is that it's going to plateau. And you know what? I trust them more than I trust you. It's really that simple.

The problem is that I can't find those modifiers. And that seems like important information that shouldn't be missing. I would like to understand where they got this from rather then just trusting them.

i'd rather just trust them
these people are the experts of the world on this subject
I doubt I'll find something so groundbreaking that it will invalidate their claims.
Sorry, I'm just not that talented.

[ieatfood]

Gnostic wrote: ieatfood wrote: Gnostic wrote:
The issue with over-population is pollution and the using up of natural resources like fossil fuels and lumber.

But one good thing may come of it all. With the way global warming trends seem to be going, soon Canada and Alaska will resemble sub-tropical zones, with a summer year-round. The air will be un-breathable, but I'm sure that's nothing a self contained oxygen suit would'nt cure, as the wealthy and ruling class look to Mars when this rock becomes totally uninhabitable.

In 100 years, we won't be using any fossils fuels, and likely won't really depend on lumber.

As for you second paragraph, I think you've been watching too many sci-fi movies. You know, there's something called "make-believe." Not everything you see in the movie theater is actuall real. Maybe you never learned that as a kid?

You could say that in 100 years we will finally have invented a new energy technology. Problem is, we don't have 100 years. Another 100 years at present pollution and ozone depletion and global warming levels, and we'll be living in one giant cesspit of carbon monoxide and tidal waves. Ever wonder why it seems the summers are getting warmer and warmer each year? Why all the glaciers are receding rapidly? Why we're getting slammed with one weather disaster after another like Katrina?

Far as the second part of my post goes, where in hell do you think any of it is Hollywood? Are you even aware that NASA has been studying the viability of human habitation on Mars for years now? NASA and other governmental scientific communities have been seriously funded to study this problem for a long time


http://science.hq.nasa.gov/directorate/index.html

Get over yourself and do some resaerch before you accuse people of using fantasy in thier posts.

Ok there are a few things that you need to learn before you can start having an opinion:

fact 1: the ozone problem is getting better, not worse
fact 2: no matter what we do, we will not be able to stop the effects of warming in the next 100 years. It is already too late.
fact 3: carbon monoxide levels in the air have decreased tremendously within the past 30 years
fact 4: Global warming occurs only a couple of degrees every century. You won't be noticing any warmer summers from such a small increase. Warming in any given region during any given year is nothing more than normal variation.
fact 5: we're getting slammed with more hurricanes because we have just entered a new 30 year cycle of ocean current patterns. There is a scientific consensus that Katrina has nothing to do with warming. There is no consensus that warming has anything to do with hurricanes.
fact 6: we do not explore mars and other planets because we seek to move the entire population of the earth there in case of resource depletion. Clearly, you are still stuck in Hollywood fairy-tale land. One too many episodes of star trek perhaps. We explore mars for the primary reason to find life there so we can understand more about how life started on this planet. Exploring space is not a colonization effort. It is a scientific effort. You need more reality--less tv.

And do you actually consider the absurdity of what you're actually posting? Here is what you said: "With the way global warming trends seem to be going, soon Canada and Alaska will resemble sub-tropical zones, with a summer year-round. The air will be un-breathable, but I'm sure that's nothing a self contained oxygen suit would'nt cure, as the wealthy and ruling class look to Mars when this rock becomes totally uninhabitable."

Uh, so you're saying that global warming with make the earth so unhabitable that we will have to travel half-way around the solar system to another planet which is nothing more than a ball of rock with no atmosphere with a temp of -55 degrees C? That's supposed to be more habitable? I'm guessing you and logic are not the best of friends....

[Headrattle]

ieatfood wrote: i'd rather just trust them
these people are the experts of the world on this subject
I doubt I'll find something so groundbreaking that it will invalidate their claims.
Sorry, I'm just not that talented.

It is my nature to question. And when they leave something like that out, I wonder why. Perhaps I don't understand it. Perhaps there is something I am missing. But I would be interested to know why their forecast goes against intuition. Perhaps they are factoring in a higher death rate in many parts of the world. Perhaps they are factoring in a lower birth rate. If it is the first, then the question would be, shouldn't we be trying to stop that.

This is just an example and I am not saying that this is true, but let's say that they are forecasting the population decreasing in growth because of a lack of resources for certain parts of the world. Famine or whatever.

Essentially, I am interested to know why it happens, instead of just saying "huh." You already made me learn that they are forecasting such an event. But now I have to know why.

Just my nature.

[Gnostic]

ieatfood wrote: Gnostic wrote: ieatfood wrote: Gnostic wrote:
The issue with over-population is pollution and the using up of natural resources like fossil fuels and lumber.

But one good thing may come of it all. With the way global warming trends seem to be going, soon Canada and Alaska will resemble sub-tropical zones, with a summer year-round. The air will be un-breathable, but I'm sure that's nothing a self contained oxygen suit would'nt cure, as the wealthy and ruling class look to Mars when this rock becomes totally uninhabitable.

In 100 years, we won't be using any fossils fuels, and likely won't really depend on lumber.

As for you second paragraph, I think you've been watching too many sci-fi movies. You know, there's something called "make-believe." Not everything you see in the movie theater is actuall real. Maybe you never learned that as a kid?

You could say that in 100 years we will finally have invented a new energy technology. Problem is, we don't have 100 years. Another 100 years at present pollution and ozone depletion and global warming levels, and we'll be living in one giant cesspit of carbon monoxide and tidal waves. Ever wonder why it seems the summers are getting warmer and warmer each year? Why all the glaciers are receding rapidly? Why we're getting slammed with one weather disaster after another like Katrina?

Far as the second part of my post goes, where in hell do you think any of it is Hollywood? Are you even aware that NASA has been studying the viability of human habitation on Mars for years now? NASA and other governmental scientific communities have been seriously funded to study this problem for a long time


http://science.hq.nasa.gov/directorate/index.html

Get over yourself and do some resaerch before you accuse people of using fantasy in thier posts.

Ok there are a few things that you need to learn before you can start having an opinion:

fact 1: the ozone problem is getting better, not worse
fact 2: no matter what we do, we will not be able to stop the effects of warming in the next 100 years. It is already too late.
fact 3: carbon monoxide levels in the air have decreased tremendously within the past 30 years
fact 4: Global warming occurs only a couple of degrees every century. You won't be noticing any warmer summers from such a small increase. Warming in any given region during any given year is nothing more than normal variation.
fact 5: we're getting slammed with more hurricanes because we have just entered a new 30 year cycle of ocean current patterns. There is a scientific consensus that Katrina has nothing to do with warming. There is no consensus that warming has anything to do with hurricanes.
fact 6: we do not explore mars and other planets because we seek to move the entire population of the earth there in case of resource depletion. Clearly, you are still stuck in Hollywood fairy-tale land. One too many episodes of star trek perhaps. We explore mars for the primary reason to find life there so we can understand more about how life started on this planet. Exploring space is not a colonization effort. It is a scientific effort. You need more reality--less tv.

I can have an opinion regardless of whether you say I can have one or not Einstein. OK with you?

How about some links, CREDIBLE links, that shows the ozone problem is going away (it did in a small amount with the banishments of certain types of refrigerants in the 70's and 80's, but the holes are still there....ozone does'nt replete) And it's already too late? Another link please. And that's no excuse for the continues wanton abandonment of environmental responsibility. Weird and strange weather patterns and anomalies have been recorded and tracked for the last 30 years, and things are'nt getting better, in case you noticed. And why do the vast majority of the planet's meteorological scientists keep telling us that between global warming and other human-created problems, we won't have much more than another 50 to 100 years left far as a habitable planet is concerned. And then please do tell me why Nasa and other government agnecies are spending hundreds of millions on exploration of possible life sustainment on Mars and other rocks? Is it beacuse they have nothing better to do?

Please, kindly show me your credentials for telli9ng me I can't have an opinion. What are you, chief meteorologist for the national weather service? A pollution expert? An environmental engineer? What? Tell me, Mr. Expert. Oh, and provide links please, along with a copy of your doctoral thesis in industrial emissions and the environment. Hope it's from a credible university.

[ieatfood]

Gnostic wrote:

I can have an opinion regardless of whether you say I can have one or not Einstein. OK with you?

How about some links, CREDIBLE links, that shows the ozone problem is going away (it did in a small amount with the banishments of certain types of refrigerants in the 70's and 80's, but the holes are still there....ozone does'nt replete) And it's already too late? Another link please. And that's no excuse for the continues wanton abandonment of environmental responsibility. Weird and strange weather patterns and anomalies have been recorded and tracked for the last 30 years, and things are'nt getting better, in case you noticed. And why do the vast majority of the planet's meteorological scientists keep telling us that between global warming and other human-created problems, we won't have much more than another 50 to 100 years left far as a habitable planet is concerned. And then please do tell me why Nasa and other government agnecies are spending hundreds of millions on exploration of possible life sustainment on Mars and other rocks? Is it beacuse they have nothing better to do?

Please, kindly show me your credentials for telli9ng me I can't have an opinion. What are you, chief meteorologist for the national weather service? A pollution expert? An environmental engineer? What? Tell me, Mr. Expert. Oh, and provide links please, along with a copy of your doctoral thesis in industrial emissions and the environment. Hope it's from a credible university.

well i guess you can have an opinion on anything, but i was talking more about an educated opinion--sorry if that wasnt clear

ozone: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/17/tech/main522349.shtml

global warming 50-100 year lag: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL

as for global warming--sure scientists have a consensus that warming impacts will occur.
but none of them have come to the conclusion that it will make the earth uninhabitable within 100 years--that's just science fiction.
the latest models show that warming will affect poor countries a lot, but that countries like the US or Europe don't really be affected that much.

as for all your other points, they have all been debunked already by my previous post--you're just repeating same old stuff
your mars theory is still completely absurd--you probably didn't get to read my previous post so here it is again:

And do you actually consider the absurdity of what you're actually posting? Here is what you said: "With the way global warming trends seem to be going, soon Canada and Alaska will resemble sub-tropical zones, with a summer year-round. The air will be un-breathable, but I'm sure that's nothing a self contained oxygen suit would'nt cure, as the wealthy and ruling class look to Mars when this rock becomes totally uninhabitable."

Uh, so you're saying that global warming with make the earth so unhabitable that we will have to travel half-way around the solar system to another planet which is nothing more than a ball of rock with no atmosphere with a temp of -55 degrees C? That's supposed to be more habitable? I'm guessing you and logic are not the best of friends....

and no, i'm not an expert
but theres such a thing called "the internet"
ever heard of it?
you can use "the internet" to do "research" and find evidence from experts who know about this stuff

you should try it some time.

[Gnostic]

ieatfood wrote: Gnostic wrote:

I can have an opinion regardless of whether you say I can have one or not Einstein. OK with you?

How about some links, CREDIBLE links, that shows the ozone problem is going away (it did in a small amount with the banishments of certain types of refrigerants in the 70's and 80's, but the holes are still there....ozone does'nt replete) And it's already too late? Another link please. And that's no excuse for the continues wanton abandonment of environmental responsibility. Weird and strange weather patterns and anomalies have been recorded and tracked for the last 30 years, and things are'nt getting better, in case you noticed. And why do the vast majority of the planet's meteorological scientists keep telling us that between global warming and other human-created problems, we won't have much more than another 50 to 100 years left far as a habitable planet is concerned. And then please do tell me why Nasa and other government agnecies are spending hundreds of millions on exploration of possible life sustainment on Mars and other rocks? Is it beacuse they have nothing better to do?

Please, kindly show me your credentials for telli9ng me I can't have an opinion. What are you, chief meteorologist for the national weather service? A pollution expert? An environmental engineer? What? Tell me, Mr. Expert. Oh, and provide links please, along with a copy of your doctoral thesis in industrial emissions and the environment. Hope it's from a credible university.

well i guess you can have an opinion on anything, but i was talking more about an educated opinion--sorry if that wasnt clear

What's not clear is your own understanding of your own links. Here, I'll give an example;

ieatfood wrote:

ozone: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/17/tech/main522349.shtml



Well, did you miss this part of that article?

"But the report warned that the hole over Antarctica would only close fully if countries continued to adhere to the protocol and if there were no other factors adversely affecting the ozone layer like a major increase in greenhouse gases"

Guess you did. Or you conveniently overlooked it.

ieatfood wrote:

global warming 50-100 year lag: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL

Here's another quote from THAT article;

"The world community therefore must make a strategic shift. It must expand its response to global warming to emphasize both long-term and short-term protection. Rising sea levels and more weather-related disasters will be a fact of life on this planet for decades to come, and we have to get ready for them."

LOL. You are posting articles which end up basically saying the same things I'm saying. That we're on a path to self destruction unless things are done and all angles are inspected and apprecaited to fully take in the total impact of our effect on the environment and the possibility of continued human subsistence down the road. Hilarious.

ieatfood wrote: as for global warming--sure scientists have a consensus that warming impacts will occur.
but none of them have come to the conclusion that it will make the earth uninhabitable within 100 years--that's just science fiction.
the latest models show that warming will affect poor countries a lot, but that countries like the US or Europe don't really be affected that much.

Yeah, sure. Here, read this link. ]It says we have in store some already rather distressing detrimental effects on humans, other species becoming extinct, and the long term fate of us all

"No natural climate cycles can explain the heat. It must be caused, in large measure at least, by manmade greenhouse-gas emissions, NASA scientists said.

As for humans, new studies in the journal Nature have confirmed the World Health Organization estimates that, conservatively, 150,000 more people die each year — and five million more get sick — because manmade global warming is helping insect- and water-borne diseases to spread, especially among poorer nations.

Scientists in the tropics have reported that warming is drying forests, spurring a growing number of extinctions, and threatening even the many species of wild orchids that rely on near-constant mist in the cloud forests.

"If it gets any warmer, I don't see how extinction can be avoided," said Karen Masters, an American scientist working on wild orchids in Costa Rica's Monte Verde Cloud Forest."

Wow. We already have humans getting sick, and species becoming wiped out. What do YOU think will happen in another 100 years possibly if present trends do not discontinue? Just a big happy over-populated and polluted to the core party? I mean....the evidence is out there is you want to see it.


ieatfood wrote: as for all your other points, they have all been debunked already by my previous post--you're just repeating same old stuff
your mars theory is still completely absurd--you probably didn't get to read my previous post so here it is again:

And do you actually consider the absurdity of what you're actually posting? Here is what you said: "With the way global warming trends seem to be going, soon Canada and Alaska will resemble sub-tropical zones, with a summer year-round. The air will be un-breathable, but I'm sure that's nothing a self contained oxygen suit would'nt cure, as the wealthy and ruling class look to Mars when this rock becomes totally uninhabitable."

Uh, so you're saying that global warming with make the earth so unhabitable that we will have to travel half-way around the solar system to another planet which is nothing more than a ball of rock with no atmosphere with a temp of -55 degrees C? That's supposed to be more habitable? I'm guessing you and logic are not the best of friends....

I'm guessing you have finely tuned and honed your selective reading and observing skills to a science. There is literally voleumes and volumes of material available on the net, in libraries, in science journals, etc, which all say the US government is spending obscene amounts of money and technologies studying the viability of human habitation on other bodies in the solar system through artificial environments, Mars being chief among them. I'm not saying this will be a reality in 10 years, 50 years or in our lifetimes....but it's something they are seriously devoting attention and resources to, and besides, who ever thought 100 years ago we would be typing nonsense back and forth to each other over keyboards and screens through an "internet" on political discussion forums? They were still impressed with the Pony Express and Model T's.



ieatfood wrote: and no, i'm not an expert

U huh. Thanks for clearing that up.

ieatfood wrote: but theres such a thing called "the internet"
ever heard of it?

Sure. Have you?

ieatfood wrote: you can use "the internet" to do "research" and find evidence from experts who know about this stuff

Thanks for the suggestion. I suggest you do the same. :wink:

you should try it some time.[/quote]

[ieatfood]

Gnostic wrote:
"But the report warned that the hole over Antarctica would only close fully if countries continued to adhere to the protocol and if there were no other factors adversely affecting the ozone layer like a major increase in greenhouse gases"

Guess you did. Or you conveniently overlooked it.

You miss the point. I don't care whether the hole fully closes or not. The point is, the problem isn't getting worse--it's getting better. That counters your claim that ozone is getting worse. That statement is just factually wrong.



Gnostic wrote:

"The world community therefore must make a strategic shift. It must expand its response to global warming to emphasize both long-term and short-term protection. Rising sea levels and more weather-related disasters will be a fact of life on this planet for decades to come, and we have to get ready for them."

LOL. You are posting articles which end up basically saying the same things I'm saying. That we're on a path to self destruction unless things are done and all angles are inspected and apprecaited to fully take in the total impact of our effect on the environment and the possibility of continued human subsistence down the road. Hilarious.


I point out 2 things:

1. rising sea levels are not a problem for industrialized nations because we can build protections
2. the link between global warming and storms is highly speculative


i don't necessarily agree with everything in that article.
i just used that article to illustrate the global warming lag phenomenon
there are many other links that concur with this


I think you are one of those people who are easily swayed by words but not by evidence. When someone says that global warming is catastrophic or devastating, you translate that into end of world. But you don't really consider what the actual consequences of global warming are. For the average person living in the US, it's not going to be that big a deal. How is the extinction of polar bears going to affect the average American? It's not.

Gnostic wrote:
Yeah, sure. Here, read this link. ]It says we have in store some already rather distressing detrimental effects on humans, other species becoming extinct, and the long term fate of us all

"No natural climate cycles can explain the heat. It must be caused, in large measure at least, by manmade greenhouse-gas emissions, NASA scientists said.

As for humans, new studies in the journal Nature have confirmed the World Health Organization estimates that, conservatively, 150,000 more people die each year — and five million more get sick — because manmade global warming is helping insect- and water-borne diseases to spread, especially among poorer nations.

Scientists in the tropics have reported that warming is drying forests, spurring a growing number of extinctions, and threatening even the many species of wild orchids that rely on near-constant mist in the cloud forests.

"If it gets any warmer, I don't see how extinction can be avoided," said Karen Masters, an American scientist working on wild orchids in Costa Rica's Monte Verde Cloud Forest."

Wow. We already have humans getting sick, and species becoming wiped out. What do YOU think will happen in another 100 years possibly if present trends do not discontinue? Just a big happy over-populated and polluted to the core party? I mean....the evidence is out there is you want to see it.

i agree--the article basically says that warming will affect poor nations, but rich nations not so much

i already knew that

there's no evidence that says warming will be disastrous for places like the US.

secondly, 150,000 ppl dying is not really that much in a world of 6 billion
thirdly, in order to prevent those deaths, how much money do you think it would cost? I don't know the exact figure but it would be trillions. Lets say we spend 1 trillion dollars to save 150,000 lives. Thats 7 million dollars per life! Not worth it. If we spent that money building better sanitation systems in third world nations, we could save a lot more than 150,000 ppl. There are many things in this world that kill people. Global warming is one of them. But it is not the only one and it is certainly not the deadliest one.



Gnostic wrote:
I'm guessing you have finely tuned and honed your selective reading and observing skills to a science. There is literally voleumes and volumes of material available on the net, in libraries, in science journals, etc, which all say the US government is spending obscene amounts of money and technologies studying the viability of human habitation on other bodies in the solar system through artificial environments, Mars being chief among them. I'm not saying this will be a reality in 10 years, 50 years or in our lifetimes....but it's something they are seriously devoting attention and resources to, and besides, who ever thought 100 years ago we would be typing nonsense back and forth to each other over keyboards and screens through an "internet" on political discussion forums? They were still impressed with the Pony Express and Model T's.

you still don't realize how absurd your claim is
perhaps you are just too dense to understand this simple concept.
sure, there are reasons to explore outer space
sure, there are reasons to colonize other planets
but it is NOT because of resource depletion
colonization of space is good for other reasons

if it were because of resource depletion, you would have to have a situation in which mars possessed more natural resources than earth.
thats just nonsensical
even if global warming made the world uninhabitable, it would still be more habitable than mars

understand now?