I said I'd stop responding to this thread, but at this point I'm frustrated at the rather crap level of consistency that I'm seeing here.
From the 28th page of this discussion:
Which is also a misnomer because if man never existed, the climate would still change. Case in point: all of that oil in the middle east strongly suggests that area was once covered in lush forest/jungle. It hasn't been that in over 10,000 years (when man first learned to document what he/she saw). There is absolutely nothing unnatural about climate changing. The only thing we can pin on man, at this point, is the relatively high levels of atmospheric CO2.
From the 35th page of this discussion:
Define "renewable." If you're talking biological (e.g. ethanol and biodiesel): CO2, yes because the aggregate removes CO2 from the atmosphere; CH4, no because decomposition of plant life releases large amounts of CH4 which the atmosphere is already struggling to cope with.
I do not classify wind/solar/geothermal/hydro as renewable. You're replacing nature with something mechanical. All of them have unintended negative effects on nature (kills birds/function of surface area/degradation of rock structure/devastating to downstream wild life).
Humanity is going to have to face reality eventually:
FYI, that chart ends in about 2000...we're off the chart now (>1800).
Mankind has a long history of using technology to afford further population growth (sharpened stones to improve efficiency of the hunt and aqueducts making dry land farmable are two examples). Due to mechanization and genetically modified organisms, food supply is relatively secure. The new problems that aren't so easy to tackle are atmospheric in nature and not just greenhouse gases. If technology does not provide a solution (e.g. an efficient means of producing OH from H2O) the atmosphere will eventually become poisonous.
If I didn't know better, I'd say that somebody had slipped me the brown acid. In one instance I argue that climate change is a thing, and that man needs to do something about it. I'm then told that climate change is BS, and it'd occur completely without man.
In less than 10 pages of discussion the person who told me this has now decided that population control and genocide is our best solution.
WTF?
I couldn't make this s*** up if I tried. So tell me now, what's the logic? I haven't seen a single fact presented here that should turn somebody denying relevance into somebody calling for murders on the order of death camps. I haven't seen any justification for further shrinking of the birth rate, especially not justification in large 1st world countries where the birth rate is already surprisingly low. I haven't seen any justification for killing all life to make the temperature more stable (releasing radical chemicals doesn't just kill humans, those radicals damage DNA).
Can you say heel-turn into insanity? Can you say bat-s*** crazy? Most importantly, can you say unstable person who shouldn't be allowed to play with a soup spoon, because they might decide that the person eating across from them is going to steal their food and thus deserves to be murdered? The proposed solution is to "fix" things by introducing a completely unknown element into a complex system, that's toxic to a large portion of the system, and hope that fixes things. This is either the plot of a B sci-fi movie, or insanity and hubris that hasn't been rivaled in the course of human history. I can't decide which, but listening to it now is both frightening and sheds a weird light on the previously reasonable discussion.
Edit:
will global markets crash?
will consumerism win?
are global markets crashing?
is consumerism winning?
@CAPSLOCKSTUCK I would rather eat less organic food than eat that artificial gmo crap. Here in the US they cant keep enough organic food on the shelves. Part of it is we have all been education about it and 90% percent of us are pissed off and ready to get what we want. The crashes that are going on seems to be apart of economic re localization.
DEATH TO MONSANTO! WE ARE THE 90%??
?
Genetic modification is a fundamental part of agriculture. Those orange carrots, they're the product of selective breeding. Selective breeding is modifying the genetic makeup of an organism based upon desired outcome, via controlled breeding.
Do you like wheat, corn, or bananas? You're chowing down on items bred for specific traits for generations. In the case of bananas we've actually gotten to the point where consumer bananas are all clones, to the point where we can no longer grow bananas from seeds. Sci-show did an excellent job covering the topic on youtube,
Best yet, do you know why India has the population it does today? It sure as hell isn't because of its food output. Look up Norman Borlaug. By introducing hybridized crops into the third world he save millions, if not billions, from death by starvation.
Believing that Monsanto's scientific modification of genes is anything new is hubris. The methodology may be new, but humanity has been genetically modifying its animals and plant since the inception of agriculture. If that's somehow impossible to see, tell me how a modern day cow would have fared a few hundred years ago? It didn't, cows were selectively bred from Aurochs.
Believe that GMO is bad, but if you decide that your backwards belief means that people should starve you are a monster. There's a special place in hell for you, right next to Tantalus.
