Global population growth is a bigger problem than global warmimg. Human activity has increased the desertification of the Earth and between population growth and loss of land to grow crops on we will be faced with famine and anarchy at some point. Hard decisons need to be made and soon.
No global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted
by MegaDude 47 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
leavingwt
Global population growth is a bigger problem than global warmimg.
Will AGW take care of the population issue, by killing a billion or so?
-
beksbks
Ahhh so all the multi millionaires in the fossil fuels business who are skewing this argument, will have a bunker to hide in, stocked with champagne and caviar. Win win!
-
beksbks
Global population growth is a bigger problem than global warmimg. Human activity has increased the desertification of the Earth and between population growth and loss of land to grow crops on we will be faced with famine and anarchy at some point. Hard decisons need to be made and soon.
I agree completely Moshe. It's the same people sticking their heads in the sand over that one too.
-
MegaDude
Six,
I guess what mystifies me is you seem to regurgitate only what your lefty sources tell you. And when I read about the very real, very scientific, very harsh financial impact that swallowing the left AGW agenda entails, I'm stunned you don't equally focus on the gigantuan absurdity of rushing to do something that will have a draconian financial effect on you and everybody else that lives here just to support the theory of your political party of choice. I could be wrong, but it seems you don't give a crap about this very real negative aspect of your beloved theory.
There is lying going on both sides of the global warming argument from the media and the so-called scientists who are pandering for whatever money they can wring out of this issue. It's human nature. The scientists can be bought off as easily as the biggest whore of a politician.
-
Farkel
moshe,
:and between population growth and loss of land to grow crops on we will be faced with famine and anarchy at some point. Hard decisons need to be made and soon.
Are you quoting from that classic book the WTS used to love to quote? "Famine - 1975!" It said the same thing 40 years ago.
As a percent of total population, there is less famine and hunger in the world today that ever before in world history. There's more than enough food for everyone on this planet to eat well. Distribution and corruption are the main barriers to that goal and that would still be the problem if we had half the people we have now.
Besides, even if you were right, famine is one of the best forms of population control there is.
Farkel, Sarcastic CLASS
-
SixofNine
I guess what mystifies me is you seem to regurgitate only what your lefty sources tell you.
Bullshit. I talk about the basic science as much or more than anyone on this board. And just now I asked you to talk about the science and you've flatly refused, bringing it straight back to politics. I know why I believe that the theory of AWG is sound. I get zero sense that you know what the theory is.
I'm stunned you don't equally focus on the gigantuan absurdity of rushing to do something that will have a draconian financial effect on you and everybody else that lives here just to
support the theory of your political party of choice.
Absurdity is thinking that doing nothing is w/o serious negative financial consequence, but doing something is financial ruin.
Btw, why are you so sure you know the political party affiliation of long dead Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, Thomas C. Chamberlin, or Guy Stewart Callendar? Because it's their theory; not a political party's theory.
And anyway, which political party is this guy affiliated with?:
By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent | April 11, 2007
WASHINGTON -- In a Capitol Hill debate about global warming touted by its moderator as a "smackdown" between former House speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Gingrich praised Kerry's recently released book about environmentalism, acknowledged that global warming is real, and offered what amounted to an unexpected apology for his party's inaction on curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.
"I'm not going to stand up here and defend our failure to lead," said Gingrich, who is coannsidering a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 and plans to release a book in the fall burnishing his environmental credentials. "There has to be a green conservatism."
Newt Gingrich: I think the tragedy has been that conservatives have been unwilling to spend the time and energy to debate the left on which will produce the better outcome.
For example, if you are really worried about carbon loading of the atmosphere...if the United States produced the same percentage of our electricity from nuclear power as the French, we would take 2 billion, 200 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere a year, and that one step would be 15 percent better than the total Kyoto goal for the U.S.
So with that as an example, I look forward to answering your questions.(taken from: http://www.slate.com/id/2189557/ )
-
Gregor
For example, if you are really worried about carbon loading of the atmosphere...
That's the point. Carbon/nitrous oxide loading of the atmosphere is a localized concern based on topography. I grew up in the So. Cal. LA/Valley bowl where inversion weather patterns could turn the basin into a big gas chamber of smog. This is not Global F'ing Warming.
-
SixofNine
That's the point. Carbon/nitrous oxide loading of the atmosphere is a localized concern based on topography. I grew up in the So. Cal. LA/Valley bowl where inversion weather patterns could turn the basin into a big gas chamber of smog. This is not Global F'ing Warming.
True, but then no one ever claimed it was.
I am a little sad for you, Gregor, that when Newt Gingrich mentions "carbon loading of the atmosphere", you don't know what he means by "atmosphere".
-
kurtbethel
FEAR! PANIC! Send me money, NOW!