Another ship stuck trying to prove lies...

[alton]

Originally Posted by Alexraptor

I call total BS on the notion that the planet is over populated.
Our planet would be more than capable of sustaining us several times over if it and it's resources were properly managed and if people just weren't so damn greedy.

You need to come to Texas or California. Texas alone has grown by 2 million people in 4 years. Maybe if we raised our taxes the newcomers would go back home?

[CHSUB]

it's so hot today in Miami you could fry a egg on the street.....must be global warming!!!!

[Reef Frog]

Originally Posted by Alexraptor

I call total BS on the notion that the planet is over populated.
Our planet would be more than capable of sustaining us several times over if it and it's resources were properly managed and if people just weren't so damn greedy.

Well, we will know more in a few hundred years!

The problems with these theories are:

-Greed is part of the human condition. It's hard baked into the human animal. And it always will be.

-Properly managed. Ok. That seems possible in theory perhaps. What does that really mean? A mandate from a government bureaucracy managing the details of living for 30 billion people in 2150? Humanity seems awfully poor at managing large scale things beyond short term goals. How would that change?

How would that be done? We know all natural ecosystems have a maximum carrying carrying capacity. Eventually any group of technical miracles that support an extreme population is likely to falter or fail at some point with disastrous results. Just opinion. Hard to impossible to know for sure.

[lokmar]

The man made warming hoaxologists have been making up the data and silencing dissenters for 2 decades now. Anytime the lies are revealed, they get ignored and covered by new lies. All of this is to further the cause of separating us from our money. To that end, these people are now talking about making the denial of the global warming hoax a crime. Businesses will be bullied via gov. regulations into getting on the bandwagon. Anytime a continent has record cold, its ignored, and anytime Arizona has 120 deg. temps, its paraded around as proof positive that we're all gonna die. BTW, their hoaxologist forefathers swore that the earth was gonna be in another ice age back in the 70's. They themselves said we had just a few years before disaster back in the early 2000's. They lie....still.

[HippieSmell]

Originally Posted by lokmar

The man made warming hoaxologists have been making up the data and silencing dissenters for 2 decades now. Anytime the lies are revealed, they get ignored and covered by new lies. All of this is to further the cause of separating us from our money. To that end, these people are now talking about making the denial of the global warming hoax a crime. Businesses will be bullied via gov. regulations into getting on the bandwagon. Anytime a continent has record cold, its ignored, and anytime Arizona has 120 deg. temps, its paraded around as proof positive that we're all gonna die. BTW, their hoaxologist forefathers swore that the earth was gonna be in another ice age back in the 70's. They themselves said we had just a few years before disaster back in the early 2000's. They lie....still.

Literally nothing you just said is completely true. In fact, most is totally false.

[Potatohead]

Originally Posted by HippieSmell

Literally nothing you just said is completely true. In fact, most is totally false.

Can't tell that to a crazy person

[alton]

Actually you have to go back to four decades of contraversy
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...-alarmism.html
And look at all the references
Global Freezing
Global Warming
Global Climate Change
Not sure about what it will be called next?
We all know as you add more people you add more of everything
Since the ice age the earth has been warming.
Remember Exxon Valdize
Green Peace and how they got boats that ran off of Fuel oil to circle other tankers to protest oil transportation?
The biggest issue with claiming global warming is the spokes people that have been chosen are "Do as I say, not as I do!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

[ThRoewer]

Originally Posted by Alexraptor

I call total BS on the notion that the planet is over populated.
Our planet would be more than capable of sustaining us several times over if it and it's resources were properly managed and if people just weren't so damn greedy.

Well, I think you have to get outside of the thinly populated Sweden once in a while to see what high population density looks like.
I suggest India, China, Japan, or a visit to Tokyo or Mexico City, and then let's talk again.
The city of Tokyo alone has already 1.4 times the population of all of Sweden.
If you count the entire Tokyo-Yokohama region it's 4 times. And that is just one city complex.

If you want to live like an ant in an anthill, eat just as much cardboard tasting dry-food as needed to sustain you, drink water that was reclaimed from your excrement, and live in concentration camp style barracks with no privacy or personal space, you may be able to add a few more billions.
Oh, and hope you have a stuffy nose as there will be no water to waste for washing.
I suggest to watch Soylent Green to get a rather positive prediction of how it may look like.

If you want to live in a decent house, eat nice and healthy meals, drive a car, have an intact environment and have all the other amenities we so got accustomed to, then one billion is already stretching the planet's resources.

When I was born there were about 3.5 billion humans on this planet.
Now, 50 years later there are 7.4 billion, more than twice as much. And the projections predict 8.5 billion by 2030.

Well, the good news is that nature is very good at finding countermeasures, and Human greed and stupidity is likely going to help along tremendously.

Sometimes I wish I could live long enough a give you a "told you so" when the sh** hits the fan, but it may be better to kick the bucket before it all goes south

[ThRoewer]

Originally Posted by alton

... Since the ice age the earth has been warming. ...

Well, we are actually in a warm period between two ice-ages.

It's not the warming on itself that is alarming, but the rate at which it occurs. And the acceleration of warming in the last century is clearly coincident in timing and rate to human activity. It really doesn't matter if it is CO2, deforestation, pollution or just simply overpopulation - it clearly points to human activity as the cause.

Also, the rapidly warming climate will not simply cause the temperatures to raise, but could actually bring on the next ice age sooner by disrupting the oceanic heat transport.

Whatever the outcome for nature will be, it will be most detrimental to human societies.

[Bent]

I have to throw into this discussion.

This argument drives me a little nuts, at least in the "real world". Its a little different discussing it here, I tend to think the community here has a little more sense and education than most of the rest of the population.

In my opinion, I have no problem being a good custodian and a responsible human being, cleaning up after myself and such. But heres my issue with this and other arguments. You cant win and your always up against some kind of critical response from some fringe groups.

Case and point.

I hunt for much of our meat at home and we don't get a lot of grocery store meat. This leads to a need for conservation, responsible gun ownership, butchering skills, decreasing your environmental impact by not giving money to large meat companies, etc. Then you try to have a discussion about these things with fringe lunatics and people call you insensitive, cruel, etc.

Then you tell people that you store drinking water, stock up food for emergencies, and your suddenly a "prepper" looney toon.

You oppose gun laws and people say "why do you need guns! Leave the policing to the police!" Then you tell them you support the police, then they say "screw the police, they abuse their power and are racist scum!"


Anyway, my point is that its very difficult these days to be a normal person with common sense. I don't want to crap on the environment any more than I want to dump trash in my living room and not clean it up, but at the same time I don't think making a bunch of legislation that will kill peoples jobs and put more people in poverty is the best answer either.

Im not denying a shift in climate, nor am I going to sit here and say that I have no impact on the environment when I could easily over hunt my property to the point that Ill never be able to harvest meat off of it again. I could dump trash in my garden and not be able to harvest anything again.

I don't know when everything became so polarized and it frustrates me to no end.

[sde1500]

Originally Posted by Bent

I have to throw into this discussion.

This argument drives me a little nuts, at least in the "real world". Its a little different discussing it here, I tend to think the community here has a little more sense and education than most of the rest of the population.

In my opinion, I have no problem being a good custodian and a responsible human being, cleaning up after myself and such. But heres my issue with this and other arguments. You cant win and your always up against some kind of critical response from some fringe groups.

Case and point.

I hunt for much of our meat at home and we don't get a lot of grocery store meat. This leads to a need for conservation, responsible gun ownership, butchering skills, decreasing your environmental impact by not giving money to large meat companies, etc. Then you try to have a discussion about these things with fringe lunatics and people call you insensitive, cruel, etc.

Then you tell people that you store drinking water, stock up food for emergencies, and your suddenly a "prepper" looney toon.

You oppose gun laws and people say "why do you need guns! Leave the policing to the police!" Then you tell them you support the police, then they say "screw the police, they abuse their power and are racist scum!"


Anyway, my point is that its very difficult these days to be a normal person with common sense. I don't want to crap on the environment any more than I want to dump trash in my living room and not clean it up, but at the same time I don't think making a bunch of legislation that will kill peoples jobs and put more people in poverty is the best answer either.

Im not denying a shift in climate, nor am I going to sit here and say that I have no impact on the environment when I could easily over hunt my property to the point that Ill never be able to harvest meat off of it again. I could dump trash in my garden and not be able to harvest anything again.

I don't know when everything became so polarized and it frustrates me to no end.

I'd agree with you but I don't want to be associated with some gun toting, animal killing, disaster prepping nut case.

[Butch01]

Originally Posted by Dmorty217

Everyone does to a certain degree but no one believes that this is a result of the earth since the industrial revolution began... unless your trying to sell others "carbon credits"

If your non-sentence means what it appears to mean, please don't presume to speak others on this. Man's pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 150 years or so is directly responsible for the current incredibly rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, and the myriad other downstream effects we're starting to see.

I do science for a living, and whether you choose to believe it or not, it *is* happening. I'm just not willing to bet that you're smarter or better informed than the 99.9+% of the world's climate and other physical scientists who have proven that it's manmade. Maybe when you're starving because we can't grow enough food to feed ourselves, and NYC, Miami, and LA are under water you'll believe it.

And for the record, weather and climate are not the same thing. A snowstorm in June doesn't mean that runaway global climate change isn't real or isn't happening.

[alton]

Originally Posted by Butch01

If your non-sentence means what it appears to mean, please don't presume to speak others on this. Man's pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 150 years or so is directly responsible for the current incredibly rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, and the myriad other downstream effects we're starting to see.

I do science for a living, and whether you choose to believe it or not, it *is* happening. I'm just not willing to bet that you're smarter or better informed than the 99.9+% of the world's climate and other physical scientists who have proven that it's manmade. Maybe when you're starving because we can't grow enough food to feed ourselves, and NYC, Miami, and LA are under water you'll believe it.

And for the record, weather and climate are not the same thing. A snowstorm in June doesn't mean that runaway global climate change isn't real or isn't happening.

Three questions
Listening to you it sounds like over population is causing our issues?
Since C02 is heavier than air how does it get in our atmosphere?
If C02 is so bad why is it a non regulated gas?

[PIPSTER]

Originally Posted by Butch01

I do science for a living.

B.S.

[HippieSmell]

Originally Posted by alton

Three questions
Listening to you it sounds like over population is causing our issues?
Since C02 is heavier than air how does it get in our atmosphere?
If C02 is so bad why is it a non regulated gas?

Are these serious questions?

[ThRoewer]

Originally Posted by Bent

...
I don't know when everything became so polarized and it frustrates me to no end.

Amen to that.

When in doubt I would rather err on the side of caution as once the damage is done it can't be undone.
Cutting CO2 emissions doesn't harm the economy but rather creates new opportunities for new businesses (see Denmark's and Germany's wind power industries). It may harm some old businesses that refuse to adapt, but those may fail sooner or later anyway.
Life is all about change and those who refuse to adapt will sooner or later go the way of the dodo.

As for guns, I don't mind hunting rifles and pistols for the coup de grâce. Those are legal with a permit even in countries with strict gun control like Germany. Even pistols for defending your home are OK with me (though those are usually a greater threat to the owner and his/her family than a potential intruder).
What I find concerning are people who hoard arsenals of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like for "self protection" (true collectors excluded) - against whom they want to protect themselves?

[ThRoewer]

Originally Posted by alton

Three questions
Listening to you it sounds like over population is causing our issues?
Since C02 is heavier than air how does it get in our atmosphere?
If C02 is so bad why is it a non regulated gas?

1. precisely! Overpopulation is the root cause of nearly all human related/caused issues.

2. Atmospheric circulation (wind), Thermodynamic, kinetics of gases, Brownian motion,... Gas molecules bounce around at crazy speeds at normal temperatures - that alone would do the mixing just fine.

3. regulation always lags. Also, it's the dosage that creates the danger, not the presence in general. And plant life needs a certain minimum of it to survive. It's about limiting preventable excess emissions - otherwise you would have to outlaw breathing altogether.

[alton]

Originally Posted by HippieSmell

Are these serious questions?

Too many times people come on here and state there opinion, I just wish they would bring a few links with facts?

[alton]

Originally Posted by ThRoewer

1. precisely! Overpopulation is the root cause of nearly all human related/caused issues.

2. Atmospheric circulation (wind), Thermodynamic, kinetics of gases, Brownian motion,... Gas molecules bounce around at crazy speeds at normal temperatures - that alone would do the mixing just fine.

3. regulation always lags. Also, it's the dosage that creates the danger, not the presence in general. And plant life needs a certain minimum of it to survive. It's about limiting preventable excess emissions - otherwise you would have to outlaw breathing altogether.

Thanks do you have a link to a study that list the amount of CO2 that is not used up by plants and makes it into our atmosphere? Many electrical companies still use C02 to blow in jetlines. Our company alone uses 1,000's of pounds
I believe as humans we are doing a crappy job in protecting the earth! And the worst part our government leads the way in pollution.

[ThRoewer]

The amount of CO2 plants (and corals) bind depends on the amount of plants (and corals) present.
An actually better way to see this may be the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. Since we are busy cutting down the rain forests on top of burning fossil fuels the atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping faster than the CO2 levels rise: about 4 ppm per year (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/oxygen/modern_records.html)

If your company actually uses CO2, it is likely just taken from the air by cooling and compression or more commonly as a byproduct of other industrial processes. I guess they use CO2 because it is cheaper than N2: http://www.cryobrain.com/nitrocarbon

[ThRoewer]

BTW: burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow is quite stupid as they are very precious resources that are not easily replaced. Mankind is currently behaving like a poor sucker who won the lottery and then wastes it all away in no time.

[Bent]

Originally Posted by ThRoewer

Amen to that.

When in doubt I would rather err on the side of caution as once the damage is done it can't be undone.
Cutting CO2 emissions doesn't harm the economy but rather creates new opportunities for new businesses (see Denmark's and Germany's wind power industries). It may harm some old businesses that refuse to adapt, but those may fail sooner or later anyway.
Life is all about change and those who refuse to adapt will sooner or later go the way of the dodo.

As for guns, I don't mind hunting rifles and pistols for the coup de grâce. Those are legal with a permit even in countries with strict gun control like Germany. Even pistols for defending your home are OK with me (though those are usually a greater threat to the owner and his/her family than a potential intruder).
What I find concerning are people who hoard arsenals of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like for "self protection" (true collectors excluded) - against whom they want to protect themselves?

Without getting all "gun nerd" on ya, I do find that I often have this discussion with non gun nerds and my next statement usually shocks them.

I don't support an "assault weapons" ban...but I would support a hand gun ban would one come up.

The reason is, If you go by the numbers, violent crimes are committed by handguns by a large, large margin. More people were actually killed by hammers in 2015 than by "assault rifles".

I keep putting assault rifle in quotes because what is sold to common people at gun shops are not assault rifles at all. They are merely semi-automatic rifles that look like their military counterparts. Calling an AR-15 and a M16 both assault rifles is like calling a Siberian husky and a Timber wolf both Wolves. Here is a cool concise read outlining the difference:
http://tribunist.com/news/when-you-h...how-them-this/

I'm also ok with high capacity mag bans. Plenty of research has shown that proper practice and training can enable someone to put Rounds down range just as fast with three, ten round magazines as someone untrained with a single 30 round magazine. I've done the drills multiple times and not only am I just as fast with the ten rounders, I'm actually more accurate. A properly trained person can unload and reload their rifle in less than a second.

Furthermore, I think we need to really up the ante with weapons violations punishments. Depending on the severity, I'd be ok with cutting someone's hands off. After all, you can't shoot a gun with no hands.

As for the "what are they protecting themselves from" question, the answer is "the government". The second amendment is the second amendment for a reason. It's that important, otherwise it would be the 12 or 13th. It's literally the second thing they thought of out of all the things they needed to cover. Without a way to encite fear into the government of the citizens being able to defend themselves adequately from oppression, the government has no reason not to exert control over their citizens. No, a rifle or handgun isn't going to stop a tank, but a few hundred of them will, and plenty of bigger weapons will be lying on the ground if something like this happens, but we have to have a way to get to that point first. Often the threat of force is enough to keep a balance. What did teddy Roosevelt say? "Speak softly and carry a big stick?" Take that stick away, and your leverage is gone. The second amendment is one of the reasons we have the freedoms we have today, not in spite of it. However, in contrast to that, I will say that buying a Swim cap and shaving you body doesn't make you Michael Phelps. You have to practice and log range time. Responsible gun ownership means not only keeping your weapons out of everyone's hands but your own at all times, but also ensuring you know what the heck your doing with it. That's my biggest beef with most of the gun owners in the country these days, most of them couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag and I'm supposed to be OK with these people carrying in public? No thanks.


Anyway, off my soapbox, and back on topic.

Yes, cutting co2 emissions does indeed harm the economy. Just look at the coal miners in WV that are currently unemployed for an example. These people need work. WV has a really terrible economy now directly due to the clean air act and legislation that has put people out of work. The less people that draw a paycheck, the less income tax the government collects. This state went from a massive tax surplus to a huge deficit in the last 8 years simply from legislation that has shut down coal mines and related businesses.

I'm totally fine with cleaner forms of energy, but These new resources and jobs need to be in place before you phase out the old ones. Otherwise you cut the governmental cash flow and put more people on government assistance. You can't just throw people in poverty like that and say "good luck" (Not you specifically, that's not what I mean).

So anyways, this reply became way more wordy than I intended. I'm all for being a good custodian of the environment, but we need to think about the human impact of this stuff first and the environmental impact second. Get people transitioned to these new jobs instead of pulling the rug out and telling them to wait for a new pie in the sky job opportunity that may or may not come in the next 5-10 years. In the same vein we also need to start make college education more affordable and stop the university extortion of the public, but that's a whole new topic.

Good talk guys!

[Bent]

Originally Posted by Butch01

If your non-sentence means what it appears to mean, please don't presume to speak others on this. Man's pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 150 years or so is directly responsible for the current incredibly rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, and the myriad other downstream effects we're starting to see.

I do science for a living, and whether you choose to believe it or not, it *is* happening. I'm just not willing to bet that you're smarter or better informed than the 99.9+% of the world's climate and other physical scientists who have proven that it's manmade. Maybe when you're starving because we can't grow enough food to feed ourselves, and NYC, Miami, and LA are under water you'll believe it.

And for the record, weather and climate are not the same thing. A snowstorm in June doesn't mean that runaway global climate change isn't real or isn't happening.

If you do science for a living, and you are able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that man made climate change exists and the rest of the scientific community can't, then you must have this published somewhere.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it exists, and we should operate on that current research, I'm not trying to downplay it. But to sit here and say that it's "proven" is simply not true. It isn't, and hasn't been 100% proven to my knowledge, yet.

[HippieSmell]

Originally Posted by alton

Thanks do you have a link to a study that list the amount of CO2 that is not used up by plants and makes it into our atmosphere? Many electrical companies still use C02 to blow in jetlines. Our company alone uses 1,000's of pounds
I believe as humans we are doing a crappy job in protecting the earth! And the worst part our government leads the way in pollution.

I don't have a link, but there are global carbon budget studies that show what systems absorb what. It isn't a debated topic, I assure you. The reason they can test where fossil emissions end up is because the carbon emmitted by the burning of fossil fuels is a different ratio of c12 to c13 than other sources.

[HippieSmell]

Originally Posted by Bent

Yes, cutting co2 emissions does indeed harm the economy. Just look at the coal miners in WV that are currently unemployed for an example. These people need work. WV has a really terrible economy now directly due to the clean air act and legislation that has put people out of work. The less people that draw a paycheck, the less income tax the government collects. This state went from a massive tax surplus to a huge deficit in the last 8 years simply from legislation that has shut down coal mines and related businesses.

I'm totally fine with cleaner forms of energy, but These new resources and jobs need to be in place before you phase out the old ones. Otherwise you cut the governmental cash flow and put more people on government assistance. You can't just throw people in poverty like that and say "good luck" (Not you specifically, that's not what I mean).

I feel bad for anyone that loses a job, but if mountain top coal mining is ended, I can't say that's a bad thing.

The problem with clean energy jobs is that fossil fuels are cheap. Either fossil fuels are made more expensive through regulation so that renewables can compete, or the government develops cheaper renewables through incentives or direct research. It's government regulation or government spending, both of which are antithesis to certain political groups.