• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

mhaze said:
LOL!

But we have heard those doomsayers...right here, just four or five posts ago right here.
"The reduction is by 80% so we don't all freeking DIE!"
​
And of course you are not that radical. Nope. You just believe BILLIONS WILL DIE! Yep. Doomsayers? Got'em. Just like Al Bell said <<liberal misdirection and derails ignored>>:
The OMG! Sky Is Falling! is where the problems start. And what Lewis was likely pointing at.
​
So Ben, what say you now? It does look like

  1. you'd like to be a Doomsayer
  2. you'd like to scoff at and ridicule anyone who says there are radical eco-fascist Doomsayers
  3. you'd like to turn the argument around into ridicule of the "Chicken Little" of the anti-globalwarmer skeptics.
  4. you'd like to accuse people of dishonesty who haul out the "Chicken Little" argument
But of course you are welcome to turn your scoffing toward those silly, ridiculous arguments that "Billions will Die" and "We'll all Freeking Die!".

Otherwise, can you show consistency between your claims?

I think not.
Click to expand...

Thousands per year are already dying due directly to impacts from AGW, within a few decades of business as usual, this number could easily increase into the millions per year. If no changes are made and this continues much beyond the next few decades, it is quite possible, and even probable, that the human death toll due to the impacts of AGW could easily reduce the human population to pre-industrial era numbers and beyond,over the course of the coming century or two.

http://www.news.wisc.edu/11878

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/climatechange/
 
Last edited:
TShaitanaku said:
Thousands per year are already dying due directly to impacts from AGW, within a few decades of business as usual, this number could easily increase into the millions per year. If no changes are made and this continues much beyond the next few decades, it is quite possible, and even probable, that the human death toll due to the impacts of AGW could easily reduce the human population to pre-industrial era numbers and beyond,over the course of the coming century or two.
Click to expand...
A population level that might be sustainable, you mean?
 
Upchurch said:
Not to misdirect or derail any more than is necessary, but are you referring to the science as the "<<liberal misdirection and derails ignored>>"?
Click to expand...

...because that weird "reality" thing us liberals keep yakking about is probably just some evil leftist conspiracy?
 
johnny karate said:
Global Warming is not in the Bible or the Constitution.

'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

While the Bible doesn't refer to Global Warming it warns against indulgence in the issues responsible for AGW:


Psalm 24:1
"The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,"

Genesis 2:15
"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to serve and preserve it."

And it even provides a warning against those who defile and destroy the environment:

Revelation 11:17-18
"We give you thanks, O Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was and who is to come, because You have taken Your great power and reigned. The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, and the time of the [nations], that they should be judged, and that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, and those who fear Your name, small and great, and should destroy those who destroy the earth."

As to the US Constitution, one of the "blessings of liberty" it seeks to insure for us and our posterity are the rights and opportunities to enjoy and make use of a bountiful natural environment.


http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-Intro.htm

http://www.conlaw.org/prearg2.htm
 
AlBell said:
A population level that might be sustainable, you mean?
Click to expand...

The level of population sustainability depends solely upon the levels the environment is capable of bearing given the levels of technology and energy one is willing to dedicate to that effort.
 
Has anyone told JQ that making some sentences or parts of same big and/or in odd colors is rather lame - like an upset teener rant?

And, tyr13 (sorry, have to) where are the effeminate hydroelectric facilities?
 
TShaitanaku said:
The level of population sustainability depends solely upon the levels the environment is capable of bearing given the levels of technology and energy one is willing to dedicate to that effort.
Click to expand...
Re the one I bolded; that 'one' being the first world continuing to feed and clothe the third world (as its' population skyrockets) forever?

I suspect a large number of first-worlders may vote No thanks.
 
Elbe,

I'm not talking about "them". When I say "they" I mean a number of so called elites. Very powerful, rich people who don't care about the good of others, and are concerned only with power.
 
INRM said:
Elbe,

I'm not talking about "them". When I say "they" I mean a number of so called elites. Very powerful, rich people who don't care about the good of others, and are concerned only with power.
Click to expand...

Who exactly? I'm not familiar with these bogeymen.
 
fuelair said:
Has anyone told JQ that making some sentences or parts of same big and/or in odd colors is rather lame - like an upset teener rant?

And, tyr13 (sorry, have to) where are the effeminate hydroelectric facilities?
Click to expand...

Effeminate?
 
INRM said:
Elbe,

The CFR, and RIIA for starters
Click to expand...

Think Tanks that have no official government role? That's just silly.
And what evidence do you have that they don't care about the "good of others" and are "concerned only with power"?
 
Last edited:
AlBell said:
Re the one I bolded; that 'one' being the first world continuing to feed and clothe the third world (as its' population skyrockets) forever?

I suspect a large number of first-worlders may vote No thanks.
Click to expand...

You are asserting that the first world currently feeds and clothes the third world?

on the other hand the US is responsible for almost a third (29%) of all the greenhouse gasses emitted since the mid 1800's, more than 300,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide or about 3x as much as China over the same period.
 
BenBurch said:
I can only speak to my experience as an employee of Fermilab many years ago; Certainly many fewer Republicans than Democrats at that time, probably not down to 6%.
Click to expand...

My experience runs probably close to 2-1 (~Dem40/Rep20) with the rest pretty much in the middle, undeclared and generally following the national mood. Though I expect most of these Rs (and Ds) are generally much more reasonable and moderate than the current general population brands. Of course, this experience is a couple decades old, so I imagine it is certainly possible that it has changed a bit since then,...most else certainly has.
 
But what if global warming isn't real and we end up with green jobs and a cleaner environment all for nothing? Then what!?
 
Inviro-weenies want to return to a idealised past that never existed.
Pre-industrial life sucked.

The other side just lacks imagination. Our lifestyle can be maintained with much less use of resources.

Car emissions are 80% cleaner than in the eighties. And my car is better than any car you could buy in that decade.

Our use of resources is insanely inefficient. look at modern eco houses: smart design makes central heating all but obsolete and the heat needed you can get from the earth beneath your house. It is also a lot simpler than pumping natural gas in Siberia and paying cash to corrupt dictatorship to distribute it to millions of houses.

If we go nuclear, we won't have to send our money to psycho theocrats in the middle east and we'll be driving electric cars.

Etc.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Shipping is a bigger problem. Not without solution, in fact, there are a lot of technological options available, but a huge issue (and opportunity) all on its own.
Click to expand...

Is shipping a big CO2 contributor?
I was unaware of that. Can you point me to some relevant info?

And what solutions are available for shipping?
 
JonathanQuick said:
No more heating your home in winter.
No more cooling it in winter.
Click to expand...

Here's a small problem I've noticed. You really shouldn't heat your house and cool it at the same time. Just heating it will do. I suspect that you're burning wood in the fireplace which is really a bad idea.

"You should not use your fireplace, because scientists now believe that, contrary to popular opinion, fireplaces actually remove heat from houses. Really, that's what scientists believe. In fact many scientists actually use their fireplaces to cool their houses in the summer. If you visit a scientist's house on a sultry August day, you'll find a cheerful fire roaring on the hearth and the scientist sitting nearby, remarking on how cool he is and drinking heavily." – Dave Barry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom