Global Warming vs. Terrorism

On the internet yes, anyone can write anything. In a scientific journal that is patently untrue. To get anything--ANYTHING--published in a scientific journal, that is, assuming it is a respectable journal, there has to be copious evidence to back up the claims.

Science has not historically been full of theories that were proven false. Science has historically been full of hypotheses that are proven false with a few that turn out to be correct. That's how science works. Theories, such as Darwinian evolution, are built from all the ideas we know are right AND all the ideas we know are wrong.

In 150 years there has been copious evidence that suggests that Darwinian evolution DOES explain how living things work and absolutely none that contradicts it.

Chris

 

I have examined the theory of darwinian evolution and I don't believe
that it is accurate.

I have examined the scientific establishment and found it to be both
corrupt and fallible.

I don't have to justify my position to you, or explain myself.

You aren't in charge here.

What you posted above is ignorant nonsense.

You are a fanatic. There is no point in trying to reason with
fanatics. Their minds are not open. They have decided that
they know the truth and that's that.

So I'm going to tell you the same thing that I tell the fundamentalist
christian fanatics: Go bother someone else.

I think that you are wrong.

You'll just have to live with this fact.

LIttlefoot

 

wow lil foot i knew you were being rude before but now you are just being COMPLETLY uneceptly rude!

 

I have examined the theory of darwinian evolution and I don't believe
that it is accurate.

Based on what?

I have examined the scientific establishment and found it to be both
corrupt and fallible.

Well yes, of course it is fallible. Find me a human institution that is infallible. As for the scientific establishment being corrupt, you say this based on what?

I don't have to justify my position to you, or explain myself.

That is, in fact, the purpose of a forum. If you don't want anyone to ask you to support your position then don't post. Making a comment in a forum necessitates that you defend your position, otherwise there is no purpose in the forum at all.

You aren't in charge here.

Nope.

What you posted above is ignorant nonsense.

Nope. I answered questions you raised. You simply don't like the answers.

You are a fanatic.

Nope.

There is no point in trying to reason with
fanatics.

Agreed, there's little hope in reasoning with people that aren't open to evidence.

Their minds are not open. They have decided that
they know the truth and that's that.

Yup.

So I'm going to tell you the same thing that I tell the fundamentalist
christian fanatics: Go bother someone else.

If I'm bothering you the failing is not mine. You raised questions and I answered them, nothing more and nothing less.

I think that you are wrong.

Yet you provide no evidence to support your position. I've provided copious evidence to support mine. I've also asked several times that you provide evidence to support your claims. I'm open to evidence as my interest is in understanding how the world truly functions. Which of the two of us is using fact and which is using faith?

You'll just have to live with this fact.

I won't lose sleep over it.

Best,

Chris

 

Despite claims, a majority of scientists are not controlled by large corporations. I have encountered many level headed scientists who base their opinions on evidence, observations and experiments, rather than what someone tells them to say. Besides, who benefits from a geobiologist who studies marine fossils and ancient environments?

On the Darwin theory, he didn't have all the answers to evolution; he made the connections between species diversification and environment. He wasn't the first to make the claim of evolution, as his grandfather did and a few others before Darwin. However, he had the evidence to support the hypothesis, which is now a theory due to experimentation and supporting evidence. There is more evidence for evolution than evidence for dinosaurs, and I don't hear too many people dispute the existence of dinosaurs.

Evolution is not speciation, as this was already pointed out. Evolution is the change in genotype frequency. If a population's genotype frequency remains constant (as in Hardy Weinberg Eq) evolution is not occurring. However, change in genotype frequency = evolution in progress. Humans are evolving still; I have heard within 100 years, natural red hair may not exist. This is due to a change in genotype frequency. Evolution is not the same as speciation.

BTW, individuals don't evolve; only population levels and above do.

Peace and love

 

global warming - not so much because its happening, but because there's still not enough people prepared to do something about it. In fact, there's still quite a few people that don't believe its happening, now thats scary!

 

What's even scarier is the fact that if we eliminated all greenhouse gasses
from every source, that it wouldn't matter at all.

We'd still be trashing the planet at a suicidal rate.

Greenhouse gasses constitute maybe 5% of the harm we are doing to
this planet.

Yet they are all anyone talks about.

THAT'S scary!

As for terrorism. Well, if we quit sending our uniformed terrorists all
over the planet to commit mass murder and destruction, then we
wouldn't have to worry about our victims trying to hit us back.


Littlefoot

 

I'd agree in so far as the damage that has already been done to ecosystems and ecosystem services. We've seen some damage from global warming, but not a real large amount yet. That is precisely the point though, isn't it? We've only seen modest warming thus far and have already seen damage. With a lot of warming we'll see really substantial damage, and in ways that may well trump almost everything else going on. We certainly shouldn't focus on one problem to the exclusion of all others, but I really don't think that we're in risk of doing that.

Chris

 

It seems to me that if we were to eliminate all artificial greenhouse gasses
from every source, that it wouldn't make any difference at all.

We'd still be trashing the planet at an almost unbelievable rate. A suicidal
rate.

Note that the technologies used to eliminate artificial greenhouse gasses do
considerable harm themselves.

We aren't at risk of doing that because it is already being done. When was
the last time you read an international frontpage story documenting the
growing dead zones in the world's oceans, the number of acres of healthy
ecosystem lost in the previous year to roading, industrial farming and
ranching, dams, building and parking lot construction, new industrial
facilities, mines, forests converted to treefarms...?

The World Wildlife Federation, a very conservative organization,
in their Living Planet 2006 report, estimates that we will need an
entire new Earth by the year 2050. Another planet just like this
one to maintain the present lifestyle for the people who will be
alive then.

No focus on that report in the international media...

With China and Russia and Brazil and India industrializing like crazy
we are in incredibly serious trouble.

Global warming is irrelevant in this picture, because if we do what is
necessary to curtail the destruction that is occurring and projected,
that problem will take care of itself.

And if we don't do that, we are history. Oh, there will be millions
of people left. But none of them will be living like this.

Those that think they are going to will have their retreats destroyed
by hordes of refugees with nothing to lose.

LIttlefoot

"The greatest fine art of the future will be the making of a
comfortable living from a small piece of land."

-- Abraham Lincoln

 

Lol at all who picked Terrorism.

Stitch up.

 

It seems to me that if we were to eliminate all artificial greenhouse gasses
from every source, that it wouldn't make any difference at all.

But that simply isn't supported by any sort of data. Widespread ecological collapses due to rapid climate change and ocean acidification is well supported though.

We'd still be trashing the planet at an almost unbelievable rate. A suicidal
rate.

I don't know anyone that thinks global warming is the only problem the world must deal with. There are many, many problems.

Note that the technologies used to eliminate artificial greenhouse gasses do considerable harm themselves.

Such as....



We aren't at risk of doing that because it is already being done. When was the last time you read an international frontpage story documenting the growing dead zones in the world's oceans, the number of acres of healthy ecosystem lost in the previous year to roading, industrial farming and ranching, dams, building and parking lot construction, new industrial facilities, mines, forests converted to treefarms...?

Well, actually I see those headlines fairly frequently. All of them will be compounded many times over by rapid climate change and ocean acidification though.

The World Wildlife Federation, a very conservative organization,
in their Living Planet 2006 report, estimates that we will need an
entire new Earth by the year 2050. Another planet just like this
one to maintain the present lifestyle for the people who will be
alive then.

No focus on that report in the international media...

But global warming and so many of the other problems that are reported work to produce this result.

With China and Russia and Brazil and India industrializing like crazy
we are in incredibly serious trouble.

Agreed, but many countries are looking to industrialize in the most sustainable ways feasible. Brazil plans to provide 80% of its fuel for motor vehicles with sugarcane-derived ethanol in 5 years.

Global warming is irrelevant in this picture, because if we do what is
necessary to curtail the destruction that is occurring and projected,
that problem will take care of itself.

Well, no, it's extremely relevant. Most other actions are superceded by the need to keep the climate from warming extremely rapidly. For example, 1/3 of the Great Barrier Reef is now part of a huge marine reserve. If current rates of warming and ocean acidification continue, within 100 years perhaps 95% of the coral will be dead. Global warming is very relevant.

And if we don't do that, we are history. Oh, there will be millions
of people left. But none of them will be living like this.

Agreed.

cj

 

Hi Chris,

(Those are quotes from me in bold, that Chris is responding to.)

It is supported by massive quantities of data chronicling the destruction
and severe damage being done to ecosystems all over the world that have
nothing to do with atmospheric changes: Industrial mining and agricultural
and construction and roading and refining and manufacturing and silivcutlure
(either clearcutting or turning vast acreages of forest into tree farms) as
well as the depletion and pollution of ground water and so forth.

I know of hundreds of millions of people who think it is the problem because
that's all the so-called "environmental movement" talks about in the Media.

All industries do harm to the environment.

Duh.

Bullshit. That is simply a lie.

"Headlines" are something seen by the average person. That gets in their
face.

What would say the ration of global warming headlines to other environmental
headlines is?

I'd guess it was about 100:1

Global warming is a green herring being used by the corporate-sponsored
psuedo-environmental movement to keep people from noticing what's
really being done to the planet.

Good grief! I am asking you once again to quit playing childish
word games just because you have taken an unsupportable position.

You claim to be a scientist but you think like a lawyer.

There is no such thing as a sustainable industry. That's a contradiction in terms.
It's doublespeak, like "sustainable growth". How can you grow indefinitely
in a finite ecosystem on a finite planet?

"Industry _is_ violence." -- Ghandi

Tell us, please, just how many acres of forest and grasslands and wetlands
are being removed from Nature to grow all of this sugarcane.

And where all the minerals being mined to produce all the equipment
necessary to do this is coming from. And where the smelters and
coking plants and steel refineries and foundries and factories and so
forth are.

More psuedo-environmental bullshit. If we were to eliminate _all_ greenhouse
gasses we'd still be damaging the planet at a suicidal rate.

I can't even figure out what you are agreeing with.

But I can tell everyone this: If we trust people like you to save the
planet, we are history. You aren't going to advocate anything that
will jeapordize your current lifestyle and material goals.

And it is about 500,000,000 middle class people who live like you
around the world that are destroying this planet.

And please, no bullshit about the damage done by poor people. Your
government and military and corporations have deliberately destroyed
their agrarian cultures and economies. Before the arrival of the
Corpororations and their uniformed thugs and bought-and-paid-for
despots they lived sustainably on those lands for millennia.

As did the people they stole this continent from.

Littlefoot

Note added later: Your use of the bold tags is very effective. I'll be
following your example. Thanks.

 

I'd worry more about terrorism. From what I've read, global warming may be wrongly blamed in many cases. There have been natural hazards before, and there will always be, as this is the way nature works. People should become more responsible over what they do to cause damage to nature, as they will be the ones to suffer the consequences. Terrorism is not something natural, and the natural balance won't be disturbed if they are eliminated. I think that the risk probability of being harmed by a terrorist is higher.

 

Terrorism is sure a bigger worry if you live in the Middle East, where
America's uniformed terrorists are committing mass murder and
destruction. Along with the British and Canadian terrorists, and others.

Why are they there? It's just neo-colonialism. Most of the people in that area
basically live in the 16th century. (by the US's reckoning) The object is to
destroy that relatively Earth-friendly economy and force them to become good little Capitalist workers and consumers.

Because there are so many individual and institutional investors in the U.S.
and Britain and Canada (etc.) that need something new to invest in, and
so many multi-national construction corporations that need contracts to
remain viable.

It eally stinks, but it's nothing new. It's how this system operates. It's an
economy that has to grow or it dies.

There's a direct connection between war (terrorism) and environmental
destruction. They are aspects of the same problem.

Littlefoot

 

i guess if we dont worry about our planet, then we wont have to worry about terrism, because we wont have a plant to have terrorism on . now will we???

 

Indeed!

But the people that mainstream America calls "terrorists" are really just guerilla
fighters from countries that don't have modern armies and are resisting U.S.
imperialism.

We called the 'Native Americans' who resisted the theft of the their lands and
the destruction of their cultures, "terrorists", too....

And why are we trying to conquer the Middle East? To turn all those people
into good little workers and consumers (most of them live very primitively
by our standards). We need more cheap labor and more markets and
contracts for huge construction companies to prop up this twisted
economy again. To keep the American Dream alive.

It's really sick. We will, if successful, wipe out their native economy,
which is far more Earth-friendly than ours, and then force them to pay
for all of the infrastructure we've shoved down their throats by installing
puppet leaders who will take out huge loans from international banks
that the poor people will have to pay off.

So that the average American can fulfill their material dreams. So the
stocks and bonds their insurance companies and pension funds and personal
stock portfolios and college funds will continue to rake in the dividends.

So the companies they work for won't go out of business. So the
charitable foundations (who are investors too) will keep funding
the hospitals and universities and envriromental orgs....

Littlefoot

 

See:
http://www.peacetakescourage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3889

USA and other governments are doing insane. They fighting terrosism but are making buisness on seeling a weapons to other countries. People are allowed to have a guns in USA, so children are shooting and killing their teachers when are angry.
Guns should be forbidden, USA is spending a 56% of national income on Pentagon. So when you but machtes in the shop you pay one penny for new bullets. So you're supporting terrorists and all that militarry buisness. Terrorists are well paid by the governments as they keep army and and other's Satans servants.

Each average USA citizen is wasting 10x more CO2 than Chinese and 3x more than European. That's because living evil - Pentagon.

The world in current shape will not survive the war with Iran. They are enogh powerfull to defend themself until there will be no future for anybody.

Did you heard about Athomic Shield which has to be installed in Poland? This is the most dangerous thread currently for our Earth. This is big manipulation that intend to prove Russians that they are nothing! The Russians today flight in their SU49 under the USS aircraft carrier to show that they can fight. So COLD WAR here we have you again. But as the Stanisław Lem said - the most famous Pole which died recently - there is no hope to ommit the athomic war.

And there is no power either political nor militarian - to get rid of Pentagon - servants of the Satan living on the Earth.

No need to fight for the clean Air, Wather - Our glob is already lost, we cannot infuence them because they are too well surrounded by evil, machines and walls of their stupidity.

Poland started to think about global warming and fight with it in the early 80s. What USA was doing 20 years? I think that was your karma to have that 11/IX - as a warning that your coutry is on wrong trail. USA is only very young country with no ancient culture which was created on blood of tribal cultures. Have a technology but religous aura and culture is on horrible low level. Go to Borat in Kazahstan and you'll see what I mean. Such country tries to infuence into the other coutries by one monkey-like men from bush. That's why we still have so many wars on the planet.

Poland also had a warning last month - polish aircraft felt down with hi grade officers - that why because we betray our slavian brothers Russians and our politicans took other side and allowed for US forces 150km from Russian border. Poland as usual disturbed balance between world powers on this world. We will pay all for the stupidity of 'democracy' and random people ruling the coutries each 4 years. 'There is nothing worse than democration' - such thoughts had Platon and Aristoteli in ancient times and they had right. I really respect more Fieldel Castro, already dead Saddam Husain, Chaves than George Bush and simillar to them.

What I doing right now? I'm sitting in Belfast (UK) and work for Allstate USA - insurance company. If someone of you will have a car accident I'm creating programs that will return money to you even if the accident your fault. So you can build a house in the flood region and do not worry that you loose your richness even if flood will drown anything you have. I'm vell paid, but those money which America pays do not belong to America anymore. Those are Chinese money, nobody never in this world owed to nobody so much money as the USA owes to China. How do you think you will pay this off?

 

Global warming is by far the biggest threat! Terrorism could be dramatically reduced if we would leave other countries alone and let them live the way they choose. That doesn't mean we can't support baisc human rights and freedoms, but perhaps we should stop invading for oil or to settle personal grudges of the Bush family. Increasing terrorism by invading for oil that will quicken the pace of global warming... sweet a two for 1!
______________________________________________________________
Sustainable Off Grid Modern Homesteading - http://www.lifeunplugged.net

 

Hi Chris,

(Those are quotes from me in bold, that Chris is responding to.)



It is supported by massive quantities of data chronicling the destruction
and severe damage being done to ecosystems all over the world that have
nothing to do with atmospheric changes: Industrial mining and agricultural
and construction and roading and refining and manufacturing and silivcutlure
(either clearcutting or turning vast acreages of forest into tree farms) as
well as the depletion and pollution of ground water and so forth.

That's a non sequitur. The fact that there are serious problems besides global warming and ocean acidification in no way implies that those two are not very serious problems. Having a brain tumor and contracting TB simultaneously doesn't make the brain tumor harmless.

I know of hundreds of millions of people who think it is the problem because
that's all the so-called "environmental movement" talks about in the Media.

Of course it's a problem, it's simply not the only problem, and I don't know anyone that thinks so, as I said.

All industries do harm to the environment.

Duh.

Many technologies that reduce global warming and ocean acidification produce a substantial net positive reduction in environmental damage.

Duh.

Bullshit. That is simply a lie.

"Headlines" are something seen by the average person. That gets in their
face.

What would say the ration of global warming headlines to other environmental
headlines is?

I'd guess it was about 100:1

Arguing about impressions is stupid. Do a random sample of news headines that demonstrates there are 100 headlines about the damages of global warming as compared to other problems and I'll happily agree with you. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

Global warming is a green herring being used by the corporate-sponsored
psuedo-environmental movement to keep people from noticing what's
really being done to the planet.

Ok. If you're convinced, there's no point in me wasting my breath

Good grief! I am asking you once again to quit playing childish
word games just because you have taken an unsupportable position.

You claim to be a scientist but you think like a lawyer.

Hmmmm, lots of insults but no substance. That's telling.

There is no such thing as a sustainable industry. That's a contradiction in terms.

Sooner or later it's a necessity. Eventually we'll reach a carrying capacity on this planet. Ideally we'll do that by controlling birth rates. If not, nature will do it for us by controlling death rates. Over the long term we'll be sustainable, even if we really muck things up on the way. We don't have to develop along that path though.

You're saying that things have gotten bad. I agree with you, but I'm saying they can be improved.

It's doublespeak, like "sustainable growth". How can you grow indefinitely
in a finite ecosystem on a finite planet?

I never said you could. I'm not sure who you're so upset with, but clearly it can't be me.

"Industry _is_ violence." -- Ghandi

Ok???

Tell us, please, just how many acres of forest and grasslands and wetlands
are being removed from Nature to grow all of this sugarcane.

Too many I'm sure. If I ruled the world, the answer would be none. However, since I don't I've yet been unable to solve that problem completely. You'll have to forgive me there.

And where all the minerals being mined to produce all the equipment
necessary to do this is coming from. And where the smelters and
coking plants and steel refineries and foundries and factories and so
forth are.

All over the place I'm sure. Again, you seem to be very upset there is a problem, which I agree with. I'm looking for solutions. I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding.

More psuedo-environmental bullshit. If we were to eliminate _all_ greenhouse
gasses we'd still be damaging the planet at a suicidal rate.

As above: contracting TB does not make a brain tumor harmless. Global warming and ocean acidification are the biggest threats facing coral reefs today, without any question. If you'd like to stop by the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium this summer and explain to us why these are not threats, you're welcome to.

I can't even figure out what you are agreeing with.

I agree that if we don't solve many of the enviromental problems we are facing, we are in a lot of trouble.

But I can tell everyone this: If we trust people like you to save the
planet, we are history. You aren't going to advocate anything that
will jeapordize your current lifestyle and material goals.

Wow, really? What proposals to save the planet do you have that would substantially trump mine? What material goals do I have? What is my current lifestyle like? Please do tell. You see to know quite a bit about me--I'm curious to hear about what my life is like.

And it is about 500,000,000 middle class people who live like you
around the world that are destroying this planet.

Middle class??? Are you serious??? As a graduate student, I'm currently pulling in ~$15,000 per year. I'm not sure what your definition of middle class is, but I'm well, well below the middle class.

And please, no bullshit about the damage done by poor people. Your
government and military and corporations have deliberately destroyed
their agrarian cultures and economies.

MY government, military and corporations have done this? You own and control them as much as I do. Why haven't YOU done more to prevent this? Why have YOU allowed this to take place? Why are YOU continuing to support these actions?

Before the arrival of the
Corpororations and their uniformed thugs and bought-and-paid-for
despots they lived sustainably on those lands for millennia.

Not really. Human populations have been causing measurable environmental damage and exacerbating extinction for at least several thousand years. Humans haven't been living sustainably on this planet for at least the last 10,000 years.

As did the people they stole this continent from.

I've gotta tell ya, if it were mine to do over again, I would send the blankets with smallpox. I would relocate tribes again and again and again, killing as many as possible along the way. I would massacre without abandon. You know that's true because I accept that global warming is a serious problemm, which is at odds with your position. That is really the basis of your complaints and accusations isn't it Littlefoot--the fact that I do not accept your worldview (I have this crazy compulsion to see evidence...) makes me fair game to receive all the complaints you have with the world.

Best,

Chris