Culture is killing the planet; do we have the right to take whatever we want from nonhumans?
Immortalist
systematically destroying life on this planet, undercutting its very
basis. This culture is, to put it bluntly, murdering the earth. Unless
its stopped-whether we intentionally stop it or the natural world
does, through ecological collapse or other means-it will kill every
living being. We need to stop it.
We should contrast natural systems of growth and decay, in which soil
and life forms feed each other, with industrial civilization:
essentially we need a complicated way of turning land into waste:
garbage patches cover more than 40% of oceans and multitudes of fish
and birds are being killed by plastic waste, now more abundant in the
seas than phytoplankton.
It is easy to "trash" (sustainability) stars like William McDonough,
who designs green buildings without questioning their unsustainable
uses (truck factories and airports); the authors argue that we value
our culture more than the planet that sustains it.
We need to grow up and put away the childish notion that we have the
right to take whatever we want from nonhumans is eminently reasonable.
This culture is killing the planet and we should seek to break the
habits of mind that induce us to deny the severity of our
environmental predicament and point the way to significant change.
To that end, Jensen and McBay conduct an in-depth analysis of waste
and wastefulness, from what passes through our bodies, including
hazardous pharmaceuticals, to the planetary plagues of plastic and
toxic chemicals. Combining arresting personal stories with unnerving
facts about our
The throwaway society demands that we build a culture of resistance,
reject the status quo, and ask; what do you want to leave behind?
What We Leave Behind
by Derrick Jensen & Aric McBay
http://www.amazon.com/What-Leave-Behind-Derrick-Jensen/dp/1583228675
phil scott
Ok ok..get a grip.... we have bugs and mosquito's no? if we paved
everthing over, drained the swamps and irradiated everyting else we
wouldnt have those problems.... no? Think man think.
and we were making great headway at it expecially in Iraq before guys
like YOU went tree hugger on us.
Rod Speed
> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life.
Mindlessly silly.
Its actually industrial civilisation that currently ensures that we no
longer see famine and starvation except where a particular 'country'
has imploded into the most obscene levels of civil chaos and civil war.
> It is systematically destroying life on this planet, undercutting its very basis.
Even sillier. Have fun explaining how come the number of humans keeps increasing significantly.
> This culture is, to put it bluntly, murdering the earth.
You're completely off with the fucking fairys.
> Unless its stopped-whether we intentionally stop
> it or the natural world does, through ecological
> collapse or other means-it will kill every living being.
You're completely off with the fucking fairys.
> We need to stop it.
We just ignore fools like you instead.
> We should contrast natural systems of growth and decay, in which
> soil and life forms feed each other, with industrial civilization:
Nope.
> essentially we need a complicated way of turning land into waste:
> garbage patches cover more than 40% of oceans and multitudes
> of fish and birds are being killed by plastic waste, now more
> abundant in the seas than phytoplankton.
Another pig ignorant lie. And if that ever becomes a
problem, the answer is obvious, biodegradable plastics.
> It is easy to "trash" (sustainability) stars like William McDonough,
> who designs green buildings without questioning their unsustainable
> uses (truck factories and airports); the authors argue that we value
> our culture more than the planet that sustains it.
More fool the authors.
> We need to grow up and put away the childish notion that we have the
> right to take whatever we want from nonhumans is eminently reasonable.
You clowns need to let go of your dicks before you end up completely blind.
> This culture is killing the planet
Lie.
> and we should seek to break the habits of mind that
> induce us to deny the severity of our environmental
> predicament and point the way to significant change.
Fools like you need a bullet in the back of the neck and bill for the bullet sent to the relos.
> To that end, Jensen and McBay conduct an in-depth analysis
> of waste and wastefulness, from what passes through our
> bodies, including hazardous pharmaceuticals, to the planetary
> plagues of plastic and toxic chemicals. Combining arresting
> personal stories with unnerving facts about our
Whoops, premature ejaculation...
> The throwaway society demands that we build a culture of resistance,
> reject the status quo, and ask; what do you want to leave behind?
> What We Leave Behind
> by Derrick Jensen & Aric McBay
> http://www.amazon.com/What-Leave-Behind-Derrick-Jensen/dp/1583228675
Just another steaming turd...
martin
I suggest a joint Russian, Chinese, USA destruction of third-world
population
centers. It would take appx. 1,200 nukes in a rolling barrage lasting
less
than 30 days.
Martin
ZerkonXXXX
> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life
Oxymoron. Too contentious. Is this actually the purpose here? To polarize
this issue to such a degree as to invite irrationality?
chazworth
Hysterical bullshit!
Next thread please.
Dutch
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> Immortalist wrote:
>
>> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life.
>
> Mindlessly silly.
>
> Its actually industrial civilisation that currently ensures that we no
> longer see famine and starvation
Famine and starvation (redundant?) along with disease, are part of nature's
cycle, in the wild they keep animal populations at sustainable levels. The
fact that modern civilization has conquered so many of these "perils" and
that we have created a human civilization that nurtures and protects the
weak instead of allowing them to perish is precisely the point. As wondrous
as these advances are, they are contributors, along with pollution and
resource overuse, to our own destruction. Modern civilization is a perfect
macro example of how humans solve problems without planning for the
inevitable downside of the solution.
Dutch
I suggest a joint Russian, Chinese, USA destruction of third-world
population
centers. It would take appx. 1,200 nukes in a rolling barrage lasting
less
than 30 days.
Third world populations are not the problem, they use a tiny fraction of the
resources per capita that we do. For this plan to work the superpowers need
to attack *each other*.
Dutch
"ZerkonXXXX" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote
You recommend sugar-coating the destruction of human civilization? It's
getting a little late for that.
Rod Speed
> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote
>> Immortalist wrote
>>> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life
>> Oxymoron. Too contentious. Is this actually the purpose here? To polarize this issue to such a degree as to invite
>> irrationality?
> You recommend sugar-coating the destruction of human civilization?
There is no such animal as the 'destruction of human civilization', its pure fantasy.
> It's getting a little late for that.
Another lie.
Rod Speed
> martin <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote
>> I suggest a joint Russian, Chinese, USA destruction of third-world
>> population centers. It would take appx. 1,200 nukes in a rolling barrage lasting less than 30 days.
> Third world populations are not the problem,
Corse they are population numbers wise.
Not one modern first world country is even self
replacing population wise if you take out migration now.
> they use a tiny fraction of the resources per capita that we do.
There's plenty of 'resources' and plenty of obvious
replacements for what can run out any time soon.
> For this plan to work the superpowers need to attack *each other*.
And that would see the entire 3rd world starve to death.
Rod Speed
>>> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life.
>> Mindlessly silly.
>> Its actually industrial civilisation that currently ensures that we no longer see famine and starvation
> Famine and starvation (redundant?)
Nope.
> along with disease, are part of nature's cycle,
Not anymore. We no longer see famine or starvation except when the 'country'
has degenerated into the most obscene levels of civil chaos and civil war.
We dont even see that much disease anymore either and what
disease does kill substantial numbers is only because fools are
so stupid that they cant work out how you get HIV/AIDS etc.
> in the wild they keep animal populations at sustainable levels.
And human populations aint worked like that for a long time now.
> The fact that modern civilization has conquered so many of these "perils" and that we have created a human
> civilization that nurtures and protects the weak instead of allowing them to perish is precisely the point.
Nope, that isnt the problem.
While that does happen, its a trivial part of what we
used to see, almost everyone losing some of their kids
to infectious disease, even in the most wealthy familys.
> As wondrous as these advances are, they are contributors, along with pollution and resource overuse, to our own
> destruction.
Nope, its a trivial part of that.
While in theory vaccination alone means that FAR more live to
old age now, in practice not one modern first world country is
even self replacing on population now if you take out migration.
> Modern civilization is a perfect macro example of how humans solve problems without planning for the > inevitable
> downside of the solution.
We didnt need to do any 'planning' on population numbers in the first world.
That problem fixed itself by itself without any 'planning'
tooly
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:524572fc-2450-4186...@k17g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life. It is
> systematically destroying life on this planet, undercutting its very
> basis. This culture is, to put it bluntly, murdering the earth. Unless
> its stopped-whether we intentionally stop it or the natural world
> does, through ecological collapse or other means-it will kill every
> living being. We need to stop it.
>
Ok...what things could we do without?
Hmm...I don't need:
1. gas guzzling cars; give me 50 mph please, in a truck no less.
2. Push button windows
3. movie theaters
4. HD
5. A jillion channels of which only 10 are worthwhile
6. Junk mail [that the public pays for in raised postage stamps]
7. The perfect lawn [that drinks up public water]
8. Free clinics crowded with non-english speaking pregnant moms from
Guadilijara
9. clipped out coupons everyone has to wait in line behind
10.
11.
12.
Things I do need, won't give up without a fight:
1. air conditioning
2. plastic bags at the supermarket
3. 6 or 8 cylinders
4. Home Privacy [no villages please]
5. riding lawn mowers
6. Beer and a good steak
7. My remote
8.
LudovicoVan
> We dont even see that much disease anymore either and what
> disease does kill substantial numbers is only because fools are
> so stupid that they cant work out how you get HIV/AIDS etc.
Indoctrinated idiocy. There where no problems in the so called third
world countries before the stupid white man became interested in their
natural resources. And, btw, AIDS does NOT exist: just the same idiocy
and mass-killing, plus the self-indulgence and the we are the best
ever.
Stupid white man.
-LV
LudovicoVan
That's a fact: the irrationality and the killing are all ours.
-LV
LudovicoVan
> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life.
Right, of course. Stupid white man.
I just do not agree on the "culture": it's *inculture*, they are just
the same barbarians as they where few centuries ago.
-LV
LudovicoVan
P.S. And I do not agree with the "nonhumans": the stupid, barbarian
white man kills everything, including his mother and brother.
-LV
Dutch
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> Dutch wrote
>> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote
>>> Immortalist wrote
>
>>>> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life
>
>>> Oxymoron. Too contentious. Is this actually the purpose here? To
>>> polarize this issue to such a degree as to invite irrationality?
>
>> You recommend sugar-coating the destruction of human civilization?
>
> There is no such animal as the 'destruction of human civilization', its
> pure fantasy.
That is blind denial in its purest form.
>> It's getting a little late for that.
>
> Another lie.
I see what I'm dealing with here. I won't be wasting a lot of energy on you
"Rod".
Dutch
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:79vk99F...@mid.individual.net...
> Dutch wrote
>> martin <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> I suggest a joint Russian, Chinese, USA destruction of third-world
>>> population centers. It would take appx. 1,200 nukes in a rolling barrage
>>> lasting less than 30 days.
>
>> Third world populations are not the problem,
>
> Corse they are population numbers wise.
Numbers are not the issue, the issue is destructiveness.
> Not one modern first world country is even self
> replacing population wise if you take out migration now.
"First world" and "third world" are obsolete categories.
>> they use a tiny fraction of the resources per capita that we do.
>
> There's plenty of 'resources' and plenty of obvious
> replacements for what can run out any time soon.
More bone-headed denial, every resource in the world except wind and the
heat of the sun are running out.
>> For this plan to work the superpowers need to attack *each other*.
>
> And that would see the entire 3rd world starve to death.
You're an idiot.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Immortalist wrote:
>
>>>> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life.
>
>>> Mindlessly silly.
>
>>> Its actually industrial civilisation that currently ensures that we no
>>> longer see famine and starvation
>
>> Famine and starvation (redundant?)
>
> Nope.
Yep.
>
>> along with disease, are part of nature's cycle,
>
> Not anymore. We no longer see famine or starvation except when the
> 'country'
> has degenerated into the most obscene levels of civil chaos and civil war.
Untrue but irrelevant. I was talking about the animal world.
> We dont even see that much disease anymore either and what
> disease does kill substantial numbers is only because fools are
> so stupid that they cant work out how you get HIV/AIDS etc.
>
>> in the wild they keep animal populations at sustainable levels.
>
> And human populations aint worked like that for a long time now.
That's my point.
>> The fact that modern civilization has conquered so many of these "perils"
>> and that we have created a human civilization that nurtures and protects
>> the weak instead of allowing them to perish is precisely the point.
>
> Nope, that isnt the problem.
It is part of the reason the human population is mushrooming.
> While that does happen, its a trivial part of what we
> used to see, almost everyone losing some of their kids
> to infectious disease, even in the most wealthy familys.
Exactly my point, in nature diseases serve a function, they thin out the
populations of animals when their numbers grow too large to be sustainable.
We have in our cleverness all but removed that natural function.
>> As wondrous as these advances are, they are contributors, along with
>> pollution and resource overuse, to our own destruction.
>
> Nope, its a trivial part of that.
It is not.
> While in theory vaccination alone means that FAR more live to
> old age now, in practice not one modern first world country is
> even self replacing on population now if you take out migration.
Even if that were true, there *is* movement of humans around the world and
there always will be. This crass categorization of classes of people you use
shows you to be the worst form of bigot, an economic bigot.
>
>> Modern civilization is a perfect macro example of how humans solve
>> problems without planning for the > inevitable downside of the solution.
>
> We didnt need to do any 'planning' on population numbers in the first
> world.
>
> That problem fixed itself by itself without any 'planning'
Where does modern China fit in these comforting little world rankings af
yours? India?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Immortalist wrote:
>>>>> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life.
>>>> Mindlessly silly.
>>>> Its actually industrial civilisation that currently ensures that> we no longer see famine and starvation
>>> Famine and starvation (redundant?)
>> Nope.
> Yep.
Nope. There used to be plenty of starvation without famine.
>>> along with disease, are part of nature's cycle,
>> Not anymore. We no longer see famine or starvation except when the 'country'
>> has degenerated into the most obscene levels of civil chaos and civil war.
> Untrue
Have fun listing even a single example of famine
thats been seen without that in the last 20 years.
Even the starvation we did see in china with the Cultural
Revolution was with very high levels of civil chaos.
> but irrelevant. I was talking about the animal world.
The animal world is completely irrevant to what is being discussed, humans.
>> We dont even see that much disease anymore either and what
>> disease does kill substantial numbers is only because fools are
>> so stupid that they cant work out how you get HIV/AIDS etc.
>>> in the wild they keep animal populations at sustainable levels.
>> And human populations aint worked like that for a long time now.
> That's my point.
That point is obvious.
>>> The fact that modern civilization has conquered so many of these "perils" and that we have created a human
>>> civilization that nurtures and protects the weak instead of allowing them to perish is precisely the point.
>> Nope, that isnt the problem.
> It is part of the reason the human population is mushrooming.
Like hell it is. That isnt happening in the third world or the bits
of the second world where the population is getting out of hand.
It only happens in the first world where the population
isnt even self replacing now if you take out migration.
>> While that does happen, its a trivial part of what we
>> used to see, almost everyone losing some of their kids
>> to infectious disease, even in the most wealthy familys.
> Exactly my point,
Like hell it is.
> in nature diseases serve a function, they thin out the populations of animals when their numbers grow too large to be
> sustainable. We have in our cleverness all but removed that natural function.
Pity we have seen populations in the ALL of the modern first world self limit anyway.
>>> As wondrous as these advances are, they are contributors, along with pollution and resource overuse, to our own
>>> destruction.
>> Nope, its a trivial part of that.
> It is not.
Corse it is population wise in the modern first world which has self limited now.
>> While in theory vaccination alone means that FAR more live to
>> old age now, in practice not one modern first world country is
>> even self replacing on population now if you take out migration.
> Even if that were true,
Corse its true.
> there *is* movement of humans around the world and there always will be.
Doesnt mean that the parts of the world where population increase
is a problem wont self limit too like ALL the modern first world has now.
> This crass categorization of classes of people you use
You're lying now.
> shows you to be the worst form of bigot, an economic bigot.
Nothing bigotted about noticing that the modern first world has self limited on population, fuckwit.
>>> Modern civilization is a perfect macro example of how humans solve
>>> problems without planning for the > inevitable downside of the solution.
>> We didnt need to do any 'planning' on population numbers in the first world.
>> That problem fixed itself by itself without any 'planning'
> Where does modern China fit in these comforting little world rankings af yours?
Its clearly not part of the first world, fuckwit.
And is limiting its population growth anyway.
> India?
Its clearly not part of the first world, fuckwit.
Rod Speed
>>> martin <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> I suggest a joint Russian, Chinese, USA destruction of third-world population centers. It would take appx. 1,200
>>>> nukes in a rolling barrage lasting less than 30 days.
>>> Third world populations are not the problem,
>> Corse they are population numbers wise.
> Numbers are not the issue,
Wrong. The numbers are the reason places like ethiopia are such a complete obscenity.
> the issue is destructiveness.
The modern first world is nothing even remotely resembling destroyed.
>> Not one modern first world country is even self
>> replacing population wise if you take out migration now.
> "First world" and "third world" are obsolete categories.
Pigs arse they are.
>>> they use a tiny fraction of the resources per capita that we do.
>> There's plenty of 'resources' and plenty of obvious
>> replacements for what can run out any time soon.
> More bone-headed denial, every resource in the world except wind and the heat of the sun are running out.
Water aint, fuckwit.
Land aint, fuckwit.
All we do with metals is move them around, fuckwit.
>>> For this plan to work the superpowers need to attack *each other*.
>> And that would see the entire 3rd world starve to death.
> You're an idiot.
You're a terminal fuckwit.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote
>>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>>> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life
>>>> Oxymoron. Too contentious. Is this actually the purpose here? To polarize this issue to such a degree as to invite
>>>> irrationality?
>>> You recommend sugar-coating the destruction of human civilization?
>> There is no such animal as the 'destruction of human civilization', its pure fantasy.
> That is blind denial in its purest form.
Have fun listing even a single example of a destroyed human civilisation.
>>> It's getting a little late for that.
>> Another lie.
> I see what I'm dealing with here.
No you dont, you've wanked yourself completely blind.
> I won't be wasting a lot of energy on you "Rod".
Great, there is only so much of your utterly mindless silly shit anyone should have to put up with.
Dutch
>>>> along with disease, are part of nature's cycle,
>
>>> Not anymore. We no longer see famine or starvation except when the
>>> 'country'
>>> has degenerated into the most obscene levels of civil chaos and civil
>>> war.
>
>> Untrue
>
> Have fun listing even a single example of famine
> thats been seen without that in the last 20 years.
Look it up yourself, famine is widespread food shortage with many different
causes, political instability is a different issue.
> Even the starvation we did see in china with the Cultural
> Revolution was with very high levels of civil chaos.
Immaterial
>
>> but irrelevant. I was talking about the animal world.
>
> The animal world is completely irrevant to what is being discussed,
> humans.
Humans are animals. You are not listening, the existence of famine and
disease in the wild controls wildlife populations, humans have almost
eliminated those controls.
>
>>> We dont even see that much disease anymore either and what
>>> disease does kill substantial numbers is only because fools are
>>> so stupid that they cant work out how you get HIV/AIDS etc.
>
>>>> in the wild they keep animal populations at sustainable levels.
>
>>> And human populations aint worked like that for a long time now.
>
>> That's my point.
>
> That point is obvious.
Then why are you arguing about it?
>
>>>> The fact that modern civilization has conquered so many of these
>>>> "perils" and that we have created a human civilization that nurtures
>>>> and protects the weak instead of allowing them to perish is precisely
>>>> the point.
>
>>> Nope, that isnt the problem.
>
>> It is part of the reason the human population is mushrooming.
>
> Like hell it is. That isnt happening in the third world or the bits
> of the second world where the population is getting out of hand.
You need to get over this obsolete worldview of yours, there is only one
world.
> It only happens in the first world where the population
> isnt even self replacing now if you take out migration.
>
>>> While that does happen, its a trivial part of what we
>>> used to see, almost everyone losing some of their kids
>>> to infectious disease, even in the most wealthy familys.
>
>> Exactly my point,
>
> Like hell it is.
It is my point, you're just too fucking dense to see it.
>
>> in nature diseases serve a function, they thin out the populations of
>> animals when their numbers grow too large to be sustainable. We have in
>> our cleverness all but removed that natural function.
>
> Pity we have seen populations in the ALL of the modern first world self
> limit anyway.
>
>>>> As wondrous as these advances are, they are contributors, along with
>>>> pollution and resource overuse, to our own destruction.
>
>>> Nope, its a trivial part of that.
>
>> It is not.
>
> Corse it is population wise in the modern first world which has self
> limited now.
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth The only regions
which differ significantly from the world trend are Europe which is tranding
down and Africa which is up, the rest of the curces are about the same.
>>> While in theory vaccination alone means that FAR more live to
>>> old age now, in practice not one modern first world country is
>>> even self replacing on population now if you take out migration.
>
>> Even if that were true,
>
> Corse its true.
Write in English you twit.
>
>> there *is* movement of humans around the world and there always will be.
>
> Doesnt mean that the parts of the world where population increase
> is a problem wont self limit too like ALL the modern first world has now.
Why would they?
>> This crass categorization of classes of people you use
>
> You're lying now.
Shut your yap.
>> shows you to be the worst form of bigot, an economic bigot.
>
> Nothing bigotted about noticing that the modern first world has self
> limited on population, fuckwit.
Your attitude is that of an economic bigot.
>>>> Modern civilization is a perfect macro example of how humans solve
>>>> problems without planning for the > inevitable downside of the
>>>> solution.
>
>>> We didnt need to do any 'planning' on population numbers in the first
>>> world.
>
>>> That problem fixed itself by itself without any 'planning'
>
>> Where does modern China fit in these comforting little world rankings af
>> yours?
>
> Its clearly not part of the first world, fuckwit.
Look again Van Winkle, you've been sleeping for the past 20 years.
> And is limiting its population growth anyway.
>
>> India?
>
> Its clearly not part of the first world, fuckwit.
There is one world, and India is part of it. That world is becoming
overpopulated with humans and it's getting worse.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Dutch wrote
>>>> martin <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>> I suggest a joint Russian, Chinese, USA destruction of third-world
>>>>> population centers. It would take appx. 1,200 nukes in a rolling
>>>>> barrage lasting less than 30 days.
>
>>>> Third world populations are not the problem,
>
>>> Corse they are population numbers wise.
>
>> Numbers are not the issue,
>
> Wrong. The numbers are the reason places like ethiopia are such a complete
> obscenity.
>
>> the issue is destructiveness.
>
> The modern first world is nothing even remotely resembling destroyed.
Fish stocks are depleted to near extinction levels. Prairies have become
vast monoculture wastelands. Forests have lost so much diversity that they
are vulnerable to disease and insect infestations, cities are becoming
increasingly uninhabitable due to overcrowding and pollution. Agriculture is
destroying the land with pesticides and herbicides. Families are falling
apart. Our kids are on drugs. We're discovering that plastic is slowly
killing us. Our rivers are polluted by runoff from factory farms. Our lakes
are acidic due to industrial fallout. We're running out of fuel. I could go
on and on... but you can't hear anyway, your head is in the sand.
>>> Not one modern first world country is even self
>>> replacing population wise if you take out migration now.
>
>> "First world" and "third world" are obsolete categories.
>
> Pigs arse they are.
Meaningless, we're all connected now.
>>>> they use a tiny fraction of the resources per capita that we do.
>
>>> There's plenty of 'resources' and plenty of obvious
>>> replacements for what can run out any time soon.
>
>> More bone-headed denial, every resource in the world except wind and the
>> heat of the sun are running out.
>
> Water aint, fuckwit.
Fresh water is a declining resource.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_resources
> Land aint, fuckwit.
Land is a finite resource, it can be polluted, poisoned and ruined by man,
and it is happening.
> All we do with metals is move them around, fuckwit.
>
>>>> For this plan to work the superpowers need to attack *each other*.
>
>>> And that would see the entire 3rd world starve to death.
>
>> You're an idiot.
>
> You're a terminal fuckwit.
What a moron. Fortunately people like you are no longer in the majority.
Dutch
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> Dutch wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Dutch wrote
>>>> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote
>>>>> Immortalist wrote
>
>>>>>> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life
>
>>>>> Oxymoron. Too contentious. Is this actually the purpose here? To
>>>>> polarize this issue to such a degree as to invite irrationality?
>
>>>> You recommend sugar-coating the destruction of human civilization?
>
>>> There is no such animal as the 'destruction of human civilization', its
>>> pure fantasy.
>
>> That is blind denial in its purest form.
>
> Have fun listing even a single example of a destroyed human civilisation.
There is only one human civilization. No species lasts forever, we just
happen to be acting in a way that makes certain that the demise of ours
along with a lot of others is not going to take a million years like the
dinosaurs, five hundred more years, a thousand tops, at the rate we're
going. That is the consensus of "modern first world" science.
>>>> It's getting a little late for that.
>
>>> Another lie.
>
>> I see what I'm dealing with here.
>
> No you dont, you've wanked yourself completely blind.
"Corse" I do meathead. You've got idiot signs hanging all over you.
>> I won't be wasting a lot of energy on you "Rod".
>
> Great, there is only so much of your utterly mindless silly shit anyone
> should have to put up with.
What group are you inhabiting? I guess every village needs an idiot.
Rod Speed
>>>>> along with disease, are part of nature's cycle,
>>>> Not anymore. We no longer see famine or starvation except when the 'country'
>>>> has degenerated into the most obscene levels of civil chaos and civil war.
>>> Untrue
>> Have fun listing even a single example of famine
>> thats been seen without that in the last 20 years.
> Look it up yourself,
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> famine is widespread food shortage
Wrong, as always.
http://onelook.com/?w=famine
> with many different causes,
Wrong, as always.
> political instability is a different issue.
Wrong, as always.
>> Even the starvation we did see in china with the Cultural
>> Revolution was with very high levels of civil chaos.
> Immaterial
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
And since this is the best you can manage, here goes the chain on your mindless peurile shit.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>> martin <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> I suggest a joint Russian, Chinese, USA destruction of third-world population centers. It would take appx. 1,200
>>>>>> nukes in a rolling barrage lasting less than 30 days.
>>>>> Third world populations are not the problem,
>>>> Corse they are population numbers wise.
>>> Numbers are not the issue,
>> Wrong. The numbers are the reason places like ethiopia are such a complete obscenity.
>>> the issue is destructiveness.
>> The modern first world is nothing even remotely resembling destroyed.
> Fish stocks are depleted to near extinction levels.
How odd that I can buy plenty of fish any time I like.
<none of the rest of your lies worth bothering with, here goes the chain on all of them>
They call me Trinity
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:524572fc-2450-4186...@k17g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
<snipped>
Bull Sh*t!!
Culture are a cool reggae band jahman, dey no destroy de world.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Dutch wrote
>
>>>>>> along with disease, are part of nature's cycle,
>
>>>>> Not anymore. We no longer see famine or starvation except when the
>>>>> 'country'
>>>>> has degenerated into the most obscene levels of civil chaos and civil
>>>>> war.
>
>>>> Untrue
>
>>> Have fun listing even a single example of famine
>>> thats been seen without that in the last 20 years.
>
>> Look it up yourself,
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Try harder
>
>> famine is widespread food shortage
>
> Wrong, as always.
> http://onelook.com/?w=famine
What an idiot.
>> with many different causes,
>
> Wrong, as always.
Drought, politicial unrest, economic policies..
>
>> political instability is a different issue.
>
> Wrong, as always.
No, correct.
>
>>> Even the starvation we did see in china with the Cultural
>>> Revolution was with very high levels of civil chaos.
>
>> Immaterial
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
Who the hell are you?
>
> And since this is the best you can manage, here goes the chain on your
> mindless peurile shit.
Off he goes, without making a single accurate or sensible statement.
Dutch
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> Dutch wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Dutch wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>>> martin <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>> I suggest a joint Russian, Chinese, USA destruction of third-world
>>>>>>> population centers. It would take appx. 1,200 nukes in a rolling
>>>>>>> barrage lasting less than 30 days.
>
>>>>>> Third world populations are not the problem,
>
>>>>> Corse they are population numbers wise.
>
>>>> Numbers are not the issue,
>
>>> Wrong. The numbers are the reason places like ethiopia are such a
>>> complete obscenity.
>
>>>> the issue is destructiveness.
>
>>> The modern first world is nothing even remotely resembling destroyed.
>
>> Fish stocks are depleted to near extinction levels.
>
> How odd that I can buy plenty of fish any time I like.
Cod from the east coast?
> <none of the rest of your lies worth bothering with, here goes the chain
> on all of them>
As he revels in his ignorance...
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>>>> martin <martin.s...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> I suggest a joint Russian, Chinese, USA destruction of
>>>>>>>> third-world population centers. It would take appx. 1,200
>>>>>>>> nukes in a rolling barrage lasting less than 30 days.
>>>>>>> Third world populations are not the problem,
>>>>>> Corse they are population numbers wise.
>>>>> Numbers are not the issue,
>>>> Wrong. The numbers are the reason places like ethiopia are such a complete obscenity.
>>>>> the issue is destructiveness.
>>>> The modern first world is nothing even remotely resembling destroyed.
>>> Fish stocks are depleted to near extinction levels.
>> How odd that I can buy plenty of fish any time I like.
> Cod from the east coast?
Guess again.
Rod Speed
Dutch desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of
its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Rod Speed
Dutch
>>>> Fish stocks are depleted to near extinction levels.
>
>>> How odd that I can buy plenty of fish any time I like.
>
>> Cod from the east coast?
>
> Guess again.
I wasn't guessing, the Atlantic cod is gone, the Pacific salmon is declining
rapidly. All this has happened in a relatively short span of time.
The only good news is that you probably won't live long enough to see the
worst of it, which is obviously all you care about.
Dutch
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
> Dutch desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of
> its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
I accept your concession.
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Fish stocks are depleted to near extinction levels.
>>>> How odd that I can buy plenty of fish any time I like.
>>> Cod from the east coast?
>> Guess again.
> I wasn't guessing,
Corse you were, you didnt even manage to get the country right, fuckwit.
<reams of your lies flushed where they belong>
Dutch
You're a complete fool and proud of it, nice going.
<plonk>
Bert Hyman
news:524572fc-2450-4186...@k17g2000prn.googlegroups.com
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life.
Save yourself then; find the nearest ice floe, sit on it and float away.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
JK Jones
Poetic Justice
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote
>>>>>> Immortalist wrote
>>
>>>>>>> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life
>>
>>>>>> Oxymoron. Too contentious. Is this actually the purpose here? To
>>>>>> polarize this issue to such a degree as to invite irrationality?
>>
>>>>> You recommend sugar-coating the destruction of human civilization?
>>
>>>> There is no such animal as the 'destruction of human civilization',
>>>> its pure fantasy.
>>
>>> That is blind denial in its purest form.
>>
>> Have fun listing even a single example of a destroyed human civilisation.
>
> There is only one human civilization. No species lasts forever, we just
> happen to be acting in a way that makes certain that the demise of ours
> along with a lot of others is not going to take a million years like the
> dinosaurs, five hundred more years, a thousand tops, at the rate we're
> going. That is the consensus of "modern first world" science.
>
Science and consensus in the same sentence is a red flag. When you
speak of consensus you are invoking political and religious rules
because science does not recognize consensus. Five or five hundred
people agreeing on something is not "science".
Dutch
"Poetic Justice" <Poetic...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote
I disagree, multiple studies confirming the results of previous studies is
an extension of science. Scientists can look at various data and
subsequently come to similar conclusions, i.e. agree, and thus reach a
consensus, if not a unanimous one. This is similar to what has taken place
with the global warming issue. My statement is valid on the climate change
issue alone, not to mention the depletion of natural resources or air and
water pollution.
Rod Speed
Thats not consensus, thats replication.
> Scientists can look at various data and subsequently come to similar conclusions, i.e. agree, and thus reach a
> consensus, if not a unanimous one.
Thats not consensus, thats replication.
> This is similar to what has taken place with the global warming issue.
Thats not science, thats religion.
> My statement is valid on the climate change issue alone,
Like hell it is.
> not to mention the depletion of natural resources or air and water pollution.
Still mindless pig ignorant shit, no matter often its repeated.
Dutch
Its both
>> Scientists can look at various data and subsequently come to similar conclusions, i.e. agree, and thus reach a
>> consensus, if not a unanimous one.
>
> Thats not consensus, thats replication.
See above
>> This is similar to what has taken place with the global warming issue.
>
> Thats not science, thats religion.
You're not qualified to comment.
>> My statement is valid on the climate change issue alone,
>
> Like hell it is.
See above
>> not to mention the depletion of natural resources or air and water pollution.
>
> Still mindless pig ignorant shit, no matter often its repeated.
Anything that disturbs your comfortable illusions eh Rod-boy?
Poetic Justice
An asteroid, Volcano, Cosmic ray burst, virus, or any one of a few dozen
more could end life as we know it.... Why is it that a clean lake will
help when an Asteroid obliterates most life on the planet?
The universe has created most of what you named(problems) on the earth
on its own without human help. It must be awful to live in such fear.
Therapy may help you.
Rod Speed
> Its both
You're lying now.
>>> Scientists can look at various data and subsequently come to
>>> similar conclusions, i.e. agree, and thus reach a consensus, if not
>>> a unanimous one.
>> Thats not consensus, thats replication.
> See above
Completely useless, as always with your lies.
>>> This is similar to what has taken place with the global warming issue.
>> Thats not science, thats religion.
> You're not qualified to comment.
I have much better science qualifications than you do thanks child.
>>> My statement is valid on the climate change issue alone,
>> Like hell it is.
> See above
Completely useless, as always with your lies.
>>> not to mention the depletion of natural resources or air and water pollution.
>> Still mindless pig ignorant shit, no matter often its repeated.
> Anything that disturbs your comfortable illusions eh Rod-boy?
More of your lies, child.
Dutch
You're a total idiot. If several scientists come to the same
conclusions on an issue, that is the definition of
consensus. The conclusions may come from different sets of
data. If several scientists analyze the same data and come
to at the same conclusion, that is replication.
>
>>>> Scientists can look at various data and subsequently come to
>>>> similar conclusions, i.e. agree, and thus reach a consensus, if not
>>>> a unanimous one.
>
>>> Thats not consensus, thats replication.
>
>> See above
>
> Completely useless, as always with your lies.
If you're not 14, part of you is arrested at that age.
>>>> This is similar to what has taken place with the global warming issue.
>
>>> Thats not science, thats religion.
>
>> You're not qualified to comment.
>
> I have much better science qualifications than you do thanks child.
Nobody with any scientific chops would make such a
categorical statement.
>>>> My statement is valid on the climate change issue alone,
>
>>> Like hell it is.
>
>> See above
>
> Completely useless, as always with your lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
"An increasing body of observations gives a collective
picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate
system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of
the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable
to human activities.[1]
Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international
standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few
organisations hold non-committal positions."
>>>> not to mention the depletion of natural resources or air and water pollution.
>
>>> Still mindless pig ignorant shit, no matter often its repeated.
>
>> Anything that disturbs your comfortable illusions eh Rod-boy?
>
> More of your lies, child.
You're such a prototypical example of a knee-jerk Usenet
knucklehead. Whichever newsgroup you inhabit I am nearly
positive that you are considered the resident fool.
Rod Speed
>>> Its both
>> You're lying now.
You're a fucking liar.
> If several scientists come to the same conclusions on an issue, that is the definition of consensus.
If several scientists REPEAT the experiment and get the same result, thats REPLICATION, not consensus.
http://onelook.com/?w=replicate
> The conclusions may come from different sets of data.
Still not consensus.
> If several scientists analyze the same data and come to at the same conclusion, that is replication.
And not consensus.
>>>>> Scientists can look at various data and subsequently come to
>>>>> similar conclusions, i.e. agree, and thus reach a consensus, if
>>>>> not a unanimous one.
>>>> Thats not consensus, thats replication.
>>> See above
>> Completely useless, as always with your lies.
> If you're not 14, part of you is arrested at that age.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>>> This is similar to what has taken place with the global warming issue.
>>>> Thats not science, thats religion.
>>> You're not qualified to comment.
>> I have much better science qualifications than you do thanks child.
> Nobody with any scientific chops would make such a categorical statement.
Wrong when those clowns keep ignoring the EVIDENCE that
we have in fact seen a REDUCTION in global temperatures in
the last few years while the CO2 levels have kept on increasing.
Real science has to explain ALL the evidence seen, not just the convenient evidence, fuckwit.
>>>>> My statement is valid on the climate change issue alone,
>>>> Like hell it is.
>>> See above
>> Completely useless, as always with your lies.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
> "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate
> system...
Pity about the most recent evidence of some cooling.
> There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
> activities.[1]
Thats a lie. We STILL havent seen any evidence that substantiates
the claim that its human activity and not just natural variation.
ALL we do know is that CO2 levels have certainly increased,
but those dont explain why we have seen some cooling lately.
> Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international
> standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
Thats not what real science is about.
> A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
And real science has never been about 'organisations'
Its about EVIDENCE and theorys that explain ALL the
evidence, not just the convenient bits of the evidence.
>>>>> not to mention the depletion of natural resources or air and water pollution.
>>>> Still mindless pig ignorant shit, no matter often its repeated.
>>> Anything that disturbs your comfortable illusions eh Rod-boy?
>> More of your lies, child.
> You're such a prototypical example of a knee-jerk Usenet
> knucklehead. Whichever newsgroup you inhabit I am nearly positive that you are considered the resident fool.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote
>> If several scientists come to the same conclusions on an issue, that is the definition of consensus.
>
> If several scientists REPEAT the experiment and get the same result, thats REPLICATION, not consensus.
> http://onelook.com/?w=replicate
You're scrambling, this was never about an "experiment", the
issue is a whole range of observations by scientists of
climate change data over the past 10-50 thousand years.
There can't be "replication" if there is no experiment being
conducted. I have been much too kind in calling you merely
an idiot, you're a dangerous crank.
>
>> The conclusions may come from different sets of data.
>
> Still not consensus.
There is consensus on human caused climate change. I proved it.
>> If several scientists analyze the same data and come to at the same conclusion, that is replication.
>
> And not consensus.
Definitely consensus, but only replication if the scientists
involved are *producing* the data. In the case of climate
change they are only analysing it, which means it is
consensus only.
[..]
>>> I have much better science qualifications than you do thanks child.
>
>> Nobody with any scientific chops would make such a categorical statement.
>
> Wrong when those clowns keep ignoring the EVIDENCE that
> we have in fact seen a REDUCTION in global temperatures in
> the last few years while the CO2 levels have kept on increasing.
First, you can't create a trend out of a few years, and
second, you'd need to support that claim with data.
>
> Real science has to explain ALL the evidence seen, not just the convenient evidence, fuckwit.
Show your data.
[..]
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
>> "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate
>> system...
>
> Pity about the most recent evidence of some cooling.
It was cool today, that doesn't prove anything, its about
trends over hundreds and thousands of years, not a few, not
millions.
>
>> There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
>> activities.[1]
>
> Thats a lie. We STILL havent seen any evidence that substantiates
> the claim that its human activity and not just natural variation.
You're completely delusional, the evidence is overwhelming.
> ALL we do know is that CO2 levels have certainly increased,
> but those dont explain why we have seen some cooling lately.
The trend contains natural short term variations, its not a
smooth line.
>
>> Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international
>> standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
>
> Thats not what real science is about.
It certainly is.
>> A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
>
> And real science has never been about 'organisations'
They are organizations of *scientists*.
>
> Its about EVIDENCE and theorys that explain ALL the
> evidence, not just the convenient bits of the evidence.
Climate change is not convenient, it would be convenient if
it weren't true.
[..]
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oxymoron. Too contentious. Is this actually the purpose here? To polarize this issue to such a degree as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to invite irrationality?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You recommend sugar-coating the destruction of human civilization?
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no such animal as the 'destruction of human civilization', its pure fantasy.
>>>>>>>>>>> That is blind denial in its purest form.
Lying, as always.
>>>>>>>>>> Have fun listing even a single example of a destroyed human civilisation.
>>>>>>>>> There is only one human civilization.
Lying, as always.
>>>>>>>>> No species lasts forever,
We'll see...
>>>>>>>>> we just happen to be acting in a way that makes certain that the demise of ours along with a lot of others is
>>>>>>>>> not going to take a million years like the dinosaurs, five hundred more years, a thousand tops, at the rate
>>>>>>>>> we're going.
We'll see...
Plenty of fools like you claimed that every millennium since that fool
that was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans. They ALL got
egg all over their stupid little faces, very comprehensively indeed.
>>>>>>>>> That is the consensus of "modern first world" science.
Lying, as always.
>>>>>>>> Science and consensus in the same sentence is a red flag. When you speak of consensus you are invoking
>>>>>>>> political and religious rules because science does not recognize consensus. Five or five hundred people
>>>>>>>> agreeing on something is not "science".
>>>>>>> I disagree,
More fool you.
>>>>>>> multiple studies confirming the results of previous studies is an extension of science.
Pity about when they ignore the awkward evidence.
>>>>>> Thats not consensus, thats replication.
>>>>> Its both
>>>> You're lying now.
>>> If several scientists come to the same conclusions on an issue, that is the definition of consensus.
PIty that hasnt happened on that stupid pig ignorant claim of yours
that you carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
>> If several scientists REPEAT the experiment and get the same result, thats REPLICATION, not consensus.
>> http://onelook.com/?w=replicate
> You're scrambling,
You're lying, as always.
> this was never about an "experiment",
There was never ever any 'consensus' on that stupid claim
that you carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
> the issue is a whole range of observations by scientists of
> climate change data over the past 10-50 thousand years.
Pity that there is no 'consensus' about whether that is man made
or not, and even if there was, thats completely and utterly irrelevant
to real science that has to explain ALL the evidence we see.
> There can't be "replication" if there is no experiment being conducted.
Wrong again. The ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE can be replicated.
> I have been much too kind in calling you merely an idiot, you're a dangerous crank.
And you are just another utterly mindless religious bigot/pathological liar
who wouldnt know what real science was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>>> The conclusions may come from different sets of data.
>> Still not consensus.
> There is consensus on human caused climate change.
Lying, as always.
> I proved it.
Lying, as always.
>>> If several scientists analyze the same data and come to at the same conclusion, that is replication.
>> And not consensus.
> Definitely consensus,
Lying, as always.
> but only replication if the scientists involved are *producing* the data.
Lying, as always.
> In the case of climate change they are only analysing it, which means it is consensus only.
There is no 'consensus' that all the climate change we have seen
is entirely due to human activity, you silly little pathological liar.
>>>>>>> Scientists can look at various data and subsequently come to similar conclusions, i.e. agree, and thus reach a
>>>>>>> consensus, if not a unanimous one.
>>>>>> Thats not consensus, thats replication.
>>>>> See above
>>>> Completely useless, as always with your lies.
>>> If you're not 14, part of you is arrested at that age.
>> Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>>>>> This is similar to what has taken place with the global warming issue.
>>>>>> Thats not science, thats religion.
>>>>> You're not qualified to comment.
>>>> I have much better science qualifications than you do thanks child.
>>> Nobody with any scientific chops would make such a categorical statement.
What the fuck are 'scientific chops', child ?
>> Wrong when those clowns keep ignoring the EVIDENCE that
>> we have in fact seen a REDUCTION in global temperatures in
>> the last few years while the CO2 levels have kept on increasing.
> First, you can't create a trend out of a few years,
No one said anything about any trend, child.
That the EVIDENCE that any claim that global warming
is due to human activity has to explain, child.
> and second, you'd need to support that claim with data.
Like hell I do when other have provided that data, child.
>> Real science has to explain ALL the evidence
> seen, not just the convenient evidence, fuckwit.
> Show your data.
Taint my data, fuckwit child.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
>>> "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a
>>> warming world and other changes in the climate system...
>> Pity about the most recent evidence of some cooling.
> It was cool today,
No one ever said a word about a single day, fuckwit child.
> that doesn't prove anything, its about trends over hundreds and thousands of years,
Wrong with HUMAN ACTIVITY, fuckwit child.
>>> There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
>>> observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
>> Thats a lie. We STILL havent seen any evidence that substantiates
>> the claim that its human activity and not just natural variation.
> You're completely delusional, the evidence is overwhelming.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
>> ALL we do know is that CO2 levels have certainly increased,
>> but those dont explain why we have seen some cooling lately.
> The trend contains natural short term variations, its not a smooth line.
Have fun explaining why we have seen significant cooling recently, fuckwit child.
>>> Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international
>>> standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
>> Thats not what real science is about.
> It certainly is.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you wouldnt
know what real science was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>>> A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
>> And real science has never been about 'organisations'
> They are organizations of *scientists*.
Real science has never been about 'organizations of *scientists*', fuckwit child.
>> Its about EVIDENCE and theorys that explain ALL the
>> evidence, not just the convenient bits of the evidence.
> Climate change is not convenient, it would be convenient if it weren't true.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
Day Brown
>> Thats a lie. We STILL havent seen any evidence that substantiates
>> the claim that its human activity and not just natural variation.
>
> You're completely delusional, the evidence is overwhelming.
the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. But whether its caused by
hominids or not, the fact is that it is going on, and the survivors will
figure out how to adapt to it.
While the proposed changes in carbon emissions or whatever mite help.
the reality is that in trying economic times the political will to
actually do anything does not exist, and ranting about it here, while it
mite make you feel better, has no effect.
Rod is part of the majority, who if the facts to back up your case take
very many lines and draw on more than a few sources, they dont have the
attention span to deal with it.
ta
> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life. It is
> systematically destroying life on this planet, undercutting its very
> basis. This culture is, to put it bluntly, murdering the earth. Unless
> its stopped-whether we intentionally stop it or the natural world
> does, through ecological collapse or other means-it will kill every
> living being. We need to stop it.
>
> We should contrast natural systems of growth and decay, in which soil
> and life forms feed each other, with industrial civilization:
> essentially we need a complicated way of turning land into waste:
> garbage patches cover more than 40% of oceans and multitudes of fish
> and birds are being killed by plastic waste, now more abundant in the
> seas than phytoplankton.
>
> It is easy to "trash" (sustainability) stars like William McDonough,
> who designs green buildings without questioning their unsustainable
> uses (truck factories and airports); the authors argue that we value
> our culture more than the planet that sustains it.
>
> We need to grow up and put away the childish notion that we have the
> right to take whatever we want from nonhumans is eminently reasonable.
>
> This culture is killing the planet and we should seek to break the
> habits of mind that induce us to deny the severity of our
> environmental predicament and point the way to significant change.
>
> To that end, Jensen and McBay conduct an in-depth analysis of waste
> and wastefulness, from what passes through our bodies, including
> hazardous pharmaceuticals, to the planetary plagues of plastic and
> toxic chemicals. Combining arresting personal stories with unnerving
> facts about our
>
> The throwaway society demands that we build a culture of resistance,
> reject the status quo, and ask; what do you want to leave behind?
>
> What We Leave Behind
> by Derrick Jensen & Aric McBayhttp://www.amazon.com/What-Leave-Behind-Derrick-Jensen/dp/1583228675
You mean Obama isn't going to save us?
Dutch
> Dutch wrote
>>>>>>>>>> No species lasts forever,
>
> We'll see...
No, *we* won't. In any case the next ice age would wipe us
out if we didn't do it to ourselves first.
>>>>>>>>>> we just happen to be acting in a way that makes certain that the demise of ours along with a lot of others is
>>>>>>>>>> not going to take a million years like the dinosaurs, five hundred more years, a thousand tops, at the rate
>>>>>>>>>> we're going.
>
> We'll see...
No, *we* won't.
> Plenty of fools like you claimed that every millennium since that fool
> that was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans. They ALL got
> egg all over their stupid little faces, very comprehensively indeed.
No species has ever possessed the destructive technology
that moderns human do.
>> this was never about an "experiment",
>
> There was never ever any 'consensus' on that stupid claim
> that you carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
There is widespread consensus that climate change is being
seriously impacted by man.
>
>> the issue is a whole range of observations by scientists of
>> climate change data over the past 10-50 thousand years.
>
> Pity that there is no 'consensus' about whether that is man made
> or not, and even if there was, thats completely and utterly irrelevant
> to real science that has to explain ALL the evidence we see.
There is consensus. A few doubters does not change the fact.
>
>> There can't be "replication" if there is no experiment being conducted.
>
> Wrong again. The ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE can be replicated.
That's not replication.
[..]
> There is no 'consensus' that all the climate change we have seen
> is entirely due to human activity, you silly little pathological liar.
Strawman, nobody has claimed that ALL climate change is
ENTIRELY due to human activity. You're really, really
grasping at straws now.
>>>>> I have much better science qualifications than you do thanks child.
>
>>>> Nobody with any scientific chops would make such a categorical statement.
>
> What the fuck are 'scientific chops', child ?
Thanks for proving my point, illiterate boob.
>>> Wrong when those clowns keep ignoring the EVIDENCE that
>>> we have in fact seen a REDUCTION in global temperatures in
>>> the last few years while the CO2 levels have kept on increasing.
>
>> First, you can't create a trend out of a few years,
>
> No one said anything about any trend, child.
Climate change is all about trend, and how changes in the
trend coincide with natural and man made events.
>
> That the EVIDENCE that any claim that global warming
> is due to human activity has to explain, child.
The evidence is overwhelming.
>
>> and second, you'd need to support that claim with data.
>
> Like hell I do when other have provided that data, child.
I am probably old enough to be your grandfather.
>
>>> Real science has to explain ALL the evidence
>> seen, not just the convenient evidence, fuckwit.
>
>> Show your data.
>
> Taint my data, fuckwit child.
It sure ain't, but they're your claims, support them.
>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
>>>> "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a
>>>> warming world and other changes in the climate system...
>
>>> Pity about the most recent evidence of some cooling.
>
>> It was cool today,
>
> No one ever said a word about a single day, fuckwit child.
Define "recent", and show how the data supports your claims.
>
>> that doesn't prove anything, its about trends over hundreds and thousands of years,
>
> Wrong with HUMAN ACTIVITY, fuckwit child.
Human activity takes place over that specific time period.
>
>>>> There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
>>>> observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
>
>>> Thats a lie. We STILL havent seen any evidence that substantiates
>>> the claim that its human activity and not just natural variation.
>
>> You're completely delusional, the evidence is overwhelming.
>
> Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
I already did
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
>
>>> ALL we do know is that CO2 levels have certainly increased,
>>> but those dont explain why we have seen some cooling lately.
>
>> The trend contains natural short term variations, its not a smooth line.
>
> Have fun explaining why we have seen significant cooling recently, fuckwit child.
Support the claim and show how it refutes the data above.
>
>>>> Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international
>>>> standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
>
>>> Thats not what real science is about.
>
>> It certainly is.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you wouldnt
> know what real science was if it bit you on your lard arse.
You don't have the slightest clue.
>
>>>> A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
>
>>> And real science has never been about 'organisations'
>
>> They are organizations of *scientists*.
>
> Real science has never been about 'organizations of *scientists*', fuckwit child.
Peer review journals by scientific organizations are part of
real science
>
>>> Its about EVIDENCE and theorys that explain ALL the
>>> evidence, not just the convenient bits of the evidence.
>
>> Climate change is not convenient, it would be convenient if it weren't true.
>
> Never
Bozo of the week, you've won the prize.
Les Cargill
<snip>
>
> You mean Obama isn't going to save us?
He might, if he can find a jar big enough.
--
Les Cargill
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
>>> Thats a lie. We STILL havent seen any evidence that substantiates
>>> the claim that its human activity and not just natural variation.
>>
>> You're completely delusional, the evidence is overwhelming.
> The Greenland Ice Core shows that global warming has been going on since
> the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. But whether its caused by
> hominids or not, the fact is that it is going on, and the survivors will
> figure out how to adapt to it.
Yes there is a trend, that is not in dispute either.
The data shows that significant global events such as
volcanic eruptions impact the curve significantly. The curve
steepens dramatically in the industrial period when fossil
fuels begin to be burned. These are beyond coincidental,
that is established.
> While the proposed changes in carbon emissions or whatever mite help.
> the reality is that in trying economic times the political will to
> actually do anything does not exist, and ranting about it here, while it
> mite make you feel better, has no effect.
I never claimed arguing on usenet would help.
>
> Rod is part of the majority, who if the facts to back up your case take
> very many lines and draw on more than a few sources, they dont have the
> attention span to deal with it.
There is scientific data and there are easy to watch
documentaries, it does not take a genius. Rod chooses to
believe the anti-climate change gang because of some
predilection in him.
The option is do we wish to attempt to make it till the next
ice age or do want to just trash the place in the next few
hundred years like so many bad renters waiting for the sheriff.
Rod Speed
Doesnt take a genius to notice the massive holes in the claims either, like
the significant cooling we have seen recently that isnt explained in them.
> Rod chooses to believe the anti-climate change gang
Never ever said that either. I JUST said that there is no 'consensus'
that what global warming we have seen is due to human activity,
and that 'consensus' isnt what real science is about anyway.
I JUST said that real science has to explain ALL
the available evidence, not just what is fits the claim.
> because of some predilection in him.
Yep, a prediliction to real science.
> The option is do we wish to attempt to make it till the next
> ice age or do want to just trash the place in the next few
> hundred years like so many bad renters waiting for the sheriff.
That sort of shit aint what real science about either.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Industrial civilization is incompatible with life
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oxymoron. Too contentious. Is this actually the purpose here? To polarize this issue to such a degree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as to invite irrationality?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You recommend sugar-coating the destruction of human civilization?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no such animal as the 'destruction of human civilization', its pure fantasy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is blind denial in its purest form.
>> Lying, as always.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Have fun listing even a single example of a destroyed human civilisation.
>>>>>>>>>>> There is only one human civilization.
>> Lying, as always.
>>>>>>>>>>> No species lasts forever,
>> We'll see...
> No, *we* won't.
Corse we will.
> In any case the next ice age would wipe us out
How odd that the last one didnt.
> if we didn't do it to ourselves first.
How odd that you cant even list even a single example
of a even a single human civilisation wiping itself out.
>>>>>>>>>>> we just happen to be acting in a way that makes certain
>>>>>>>>>>> that the demise of ours along with a lot of others is not
>>>>>>>>>>> going to take a million years like the dinosaurs, five hundred more years, a thousand tops, at the rate
>>>>>>>>>>> we're going.
>> We'll see...
> No, *we* won't.
Record's stuck.
>> Plenty of fools like you claimed that every millennium since that fool that was stupid enough to get nailed up by the
>> romans. They ALL got
>> egg all over their stupid little faces, very comprehensively indeed.
> No species has ever possessed the destructive technology that moderns human do.
No species has ever possessed the technology to survive almost anything either.
We even worked out how to survive on the moon for a while.
>>>>>>>>>>> That is the consensus of "modern first world" science.
>> Lying, as always.
>>>>>>>>>> Science and consensus in the same sentence is a red flag. When you speak of consensus you are invoking
>>>>>>>>>> political and religious rules because science does not recognize consensus. Five or five hundred people
>>>>>>>>>> agreeing on something is not "science".
>>>>>>>>> I disagree,
>> More fool you.
>>>>>>>>> multiple studies confirming the results of previous studies is an extension of science.
>> Pity about when they ignore the awkward evidence.
>>>>>>>> Thats not consensus, thats replication.
>>>>>>> Its both
>>>>>> You're lying now.
>>>>> If several scientists come to the same conclusions on an issue, that is the definition of consensus.
>> PIty that hasnt happened on that stupid pig ignorant claim of yours
>> that you carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
>>>> If several scientists REPEAT the experiment and get the same result, thats REPLICATION, not consensus.
>>>> http://onelook.com/?w=replicate
>>> You're scrambling,
>> You're lying, as always.
>>> this was never about an "experiment",
>> There was never ever any 'consensus' on that stupid claim
>> that you carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
> There is widespread consensus that climate change is being seriously impacted by man.
There is nothing even remotely resembling anything like a consensus that its due to man, liar.
And it cant be, because it happened before man even showed up.
>>> the issue is a whole range of observations by scientists of
>>> climate change data over the past 10-50 thousand years.
>> Pity that there is no 'consensus' about whether that is man made
>> or not, and even if there was, thats completely and utterly irrelevant to real science that has to explain ALL the
>> evidence we see.
> There is consensus.
You're lying on whether its man made or not.
> A few doubters does not change the fact.
You're lying on whether its man made or not.
>>> There can't be "replication" if there is no experiment being conducted.
>> Wrong again. The ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE can be replicated.
> That's not replication.
Lying, as always.
>>> I have been much too kind in calling you merely an idiot, you're a dangerous crank.
>> And you are just another utterly mindless religious bigot/pathological liar
>> who wouldnt know what real science was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>>>>> The conclusions may come from different sets of data.
>>>> Still not consensus.
>>> There is consensus on human caused climate change.
>> Lying, as always.
>>> I proved it.
>> Lying, as always.
>>>>> If several scientists analyze the same data and come to at the same conclusion, that is replication.
>>>> And not consensus.
>>> Definitely consensus,
>> Lying, as always.
>>> but only replication if the scientists involved are producing the data.
>> Lying, as always.
>>> In the case of climate change they are only analysing it, which means it is consensus only.
>> There is no 'consensus' that all the climate change we have seen
>> is entirely due to human activity, you silly little pathological liar.
> Strawman,
Lying, as always.
> nobody has claimed that ALL climate change is ENTIRELY due to human activity.
No one ever said anyone did, liar.
> You're really, really grasping at straws now.
You're really, really a silly little pathological liar.
>>>>>>>>> Scientists can look at various data and subsequently come to similar conclusions, i.e. agree, and thus reach a
>>>>>>>>> consensus, if not a unanimous one.
>>>>>>>> Thats not consensus, thats replication.
>>>>>>> See above
>>>>>> Completely useless, as always with your lies.
>>>>> If you're not 14, part of you is arrested at that age.
>>>> Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>>>>>>> This is similar to what has taken place with the global warming issue.
>>>>>>>> Thats not science, thats religion.
>>>>>>> You're not qualified to comment.
>>>>>> I have much better science qualifications than you do thanks child.
>>>>> Nobody with any scientific chops would make such a categorical statement.
>> What the fuck are 'scientific chops', child ?
> Thanks for proving my point, illiterate boob.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>> Wrong when those clowns keep ignoring the EVIDENCE that
>>>> we have in fact seen a REDUCTION in global temperatures in
>>>> the last few years while the CO2 levels have kept on increasing.
>>> First, you can't create a trend out of a few years,
>> No one said anything about any trend, child.
> Climate change is all about trend,
Wrong, as always.
> and how changes in the trend coincide with natural and man made events.
Pity there have been neither with the recent REDUCTION in global temperatures.
>> Thats the EVIDENCE that any claim that global warming is due to human activity has to explain, child.
> The evidence is overwhelming.
Pity you cant explain the EVIDENCE of global cooling in the last few years.
And until you can do that, you have no basic for claiming that the
variation we have seen in global temperatures are due to humans.
>>> and second, you'd need to support that claim with data.
>> Like hell I do when others have provided that data, child.
> I am probably old enough to be your grandfather.
Not a chance, child.
You'd need to be over a hundred for that, child.
>>>> Real science has to explain ALL the evidence
>>> seen, not just the convenient evidence, fuckwit.
>>> Show your data.
>> Taint my data, fuckwit child.
> It sure ain't, but they're your claims,
I made no claims, fuckwit child.
> support them.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
>>>>> "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of
>>>>> a warming world and other changes in the climate system...
>>>> Pity about the most recent evidence of some cooling.
>>> It was cool today,
>> No one ever said a word about a single day, fuckwit child.
> Define "recent",
Use a dictionary, child.
> and show how the data supports your claims.
I made no claim, fuckwit child.
>>> that doesn't prove anything, its about trends over hundreds and thousands of years,
>> Wrong with HUMAN ACTIVITY, fuckwit child.
> Human activity takes place over that specific time period.
Fuck all that can possibly have any effect on global temperatures, child.
>>>>> There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
>>>>> observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
>>>> Thats a lie. We STILL havent seen any evidence that substantiates
>>>> the claim that its human activity and not just natural variation.
>>> You're completely delusional, the evidence is overwhelming.
>> Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> I already did
Lying, as always.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Thats not science, child.
And the word overwhelming only appear once anyway and isnt even substantiated anyway.
>>>> ALL we do know is that CO2 levels have certainly increased,
>>>> but those dont explain why we have seen some cooling lately.
>>> The trend contains natural short term variations, its not a smooth line.
>> Have fun explaining why we have seen significant cooling recently, fuckwit child.
> Support the claim and show how it refutes the data above.
Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>>>> Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international
>>>>> standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.
>>>> Thats not what real science is about.
>>> It certainly is.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you wouldnt
>> know what real science was if it bit you on your lard arse.
> You don't have the slightest clue.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>>> A few organisations hold non-committal positions."
>>>> And real science has never been about 'organisations'
>>> They are organizations of *scientists*.
>> Real science has never been about 'organizations of *scientists*', fuckwit child.
> Peer review journals by scientific organizations are part of real science
Thats not 'organisations of scientists', fuckwit child.
>>>> Its about EVIDENCE and theorys that explain ALL the
>>>> evidence, not just the convenient bits of the evidence.
>>> Climate change is not convenient, it would be convenient if it weren't true.
>> Never
> Bozo of the week, you've won the prize.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
Rod Speed
You're lying, as always.
You're the drug crazed fuckwit that didnt even have
the attention span to avoid letting its house burn down.
Dutch
Define "recently". Short term fluctuations are expected and
not the point.
>> Rod chooses to believe the anti-climate change gang
>
> Never ever said that either. I JUST said that there is no 'consensus'
> that what global warming we have seen is due to human activity,
Yes, there is, there is a massive consensus. What you *can*
say is that it is not unanimous, but nobody is claiming that
it is.
> and that 'consensus' isnt what real science is about anyway.
Of course it is. Science is always looking to see if current
results confirm earlier conclusions, when that occurs and
many scientists agree, then you have consensus, as opposed
to widespread disagreement.
> I JUST said that real science has to explain ALL
> the available evidence, not just what is fits the claim.
You haven't introduced anything that refutes the global
warming theory. Short term movements don't do it.
>> because of some predilection in him.
>
> Yep, a prediliction to real science.
I doubt that.
>> The option is do we wish to attempt to make it till the next
>> ice age or do want to just trash the place in the next few
>> hundred years like so many bad renters waiting for the sheriff.
>
> That sort of shit aint what real science about either.
The consensus among real scientists is that is exactly what
we're doing.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote
>
>>> We'll see...
>
>> No, *we* won't.
>
> Corse we will.
You and I won't.
>> In any case the next ice age would wipe us out
>
> How odd that the last one didnt.
I don't think we're hardy enough to get through the next one.
>> if we didn't do it to ourselves first.
>
> How odd that you cant even list even a single example
> of a even a single human civilisation wiping itself out.
We've never before had the destructive ability to do so.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> we just happen to be acting in a way that makes certain
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the demise of ours along with a lot of others is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> going to take a million years like the dinosaurs, five hundred more years, a thousand tops, at the rate
>>>>>>>>>>>> we're going.
>
>>> We'll see...
>
>> No, *we* won't.
>
> Record's stuck.
I noticed.
>>> Plenty of fools like you claimed that every millennium since that fool that was stupid enough to get nailed up by the
>>> romans. They ALL got
>>> egg all over their stupid little faces, very comprehensively indeed.
>
>> No species has ever possessed the destructive technology that moderns human do.
>
> No species has ever possessed the technology to survive almost anything either.
Man has never had to deal with the collapse of the very
ecosystem that supports life.
>
> We even worked out how to survive on the moon for a while.
For a few hours.
[..]
>>>> this was never about an "experiment",
>
>>> There was never ever any 'consensus' on that stupid claim
>>> that you carefully deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
>
>> There is widespread consensus that climate change is being seriously impacted by man.
>
> There is nothing even remotely resembling anything like a consensus that its due to man, liar.
You're willfully ignoring the facts. That is commonly know
as ignorance.
> And it cant be, because it happened before man even showed up.
What did?
Broken record.
>
>> nobody has claimed that ALL climate change is ENTIRELY due to human activity.
>
> No one ever said anyone did, liar.
Look up 7-8 lines. "There is no 'consensus' that ***all***
the climate change we have seen is ***entirely*** due to
human activity, you silly little pathological liar."
>> You're really, really grasping at straws now.
>
> You're really, really a silly little pathological liar.
It appears that is you.
>
>> The evidence is overwhelming.
>
> Pity you cant explain the EVIDENCE of global cooling in the last few years.
A few years??? You're hysterical. Why do you discuss issues
you have no clue about?
> And until you can do that, you have no basic for claiming that the
> variation we have seen in global temperatures are due to humans.
>
>>>> and second, you'd need to support that claim with data.
>
>>> Like hell I do when others have provided that data, child.
>
>> I am probably old enough to be your grandfather.
>
> Not a chance, child.
>
> You'd need to be over a hundred for that, child.
>
>>>>> Real science has to explain ALL the evidence
>>>> seen, not just the convenient evidence, fuckwit.
>
>>>> Show your data.
>
>>> Taint my data, fuckwit child.
>
>> It sure ain't, but they're your claims,
>
> I made no claims, fuckwit child.
What?! What a slimy little turd you are.
I give up, better late than never, plonk in this newsreader too.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>>> We'll see...
>>> No, *we* won't.
>> Corse we will.
> You and I won't.
Literal eejut.
>>> In any case the next ice age would wipe us out
>> How odd that the last one didnt.
> I don't think we're hardy enough to get through the next one.
Pity that we have vastly better technology now than we did then.
>>> if we didn't do it to ourselves first.
>> How odd that you cant even list even a single example
>> of a even a single human civilisation wiping itself out.
> We've never before had the destructive ability to do so.
Mindless neurotic silly stuff.
None of the rest of your lies worth bothering with, all flushed where they belong.
Rod Speed
> Define "recently".
Get a dictionary.
> Short term fluctuations are expected and not the point.
Define 'short term'
>>> Rod chooses to believe the anti-climate change gang
>> Never ever said that either. I JUST said that there is no 'consensus'
>> that what global warming we have seen is due to human activity,
> Yes, there is, there is a massive consensus.
Lying, as always.
> What you *can* say is that it is not unanimous, but nobody is claiming that it is.
There is no 'massive consensus' you silly little pathological liar.
And thats not science anyway, thats religion.
>> and that 'consensus' isnt what real science is about anyway.
> Of course it is. Science is always looking to see if current results confirm earlier conclusions,
Thats not a consensus, fuckwit.
>> I JUST said that real science has to explain ALL
>> the available evidence, not just what is fits the claim.
> You haven't introduced anything that refutes the global warming theory.
THEY are making that claim.
THEY get to show how it fits ALL the available evidence.
THATS how it works.
>>> because of some predilection in him.
>> Yep, a prediliction to real science.
> I doubt that.
You have always been and always will be completely and utterly irrelevant.
What you might or might not claim to doubt in spades.
>>> The option is do we wish to attempt to make it till the next
>>> ice age or do want to just trash the place in the next few
>>> hundred years like so many bad renters waiting for the sheriff.
>> That sort of shit aint what real science about either.
> The consensus among real scientists
No such animal.
Day Brown
> There is scientific data and there are easy to watch documentaries, it
> does not take a genius. Rod chooses to believe the anti-climate change
> gang because of some predilection in him.
gets angry, not educated. Its not stupidity, but mental pathology mostly
driven by testosterone overdose with a resulting instinct to want to
dominate at a time when egalitarianism and peer-to-peer networks are
taking over.
Freud also noted how ingenious neurotics are at explaining to themselves
why they think like they do. Because of an intolerance of ambiguity,
they only find those 'facts' which comport with the predilections you
refer to.
> The option is do we wish to attempt to make it till the next ice age or
> do want to just trash the place in the next few hundred years like so
> many bad renters waiting for the sheriff.
I'm almost 70, wont be around that much longer, so its not a personal
issue. But a pox on all their houses. The liberals, fearing charges of
racism, have failed to stop population growth in any group except
themselves. And in democratic systems, its those groups with the highest
birth rate that take over. That is, until Mother Nature steps in with
unintended repercussions of resource mismanagement. At which point- its
no longer a democracy.
The Conservatives, now thats a real oxymoron, since Goldwater was the
last who wanted to also conserve the environment, want to keep on with
mindless consumption beyond sustainable levels. Again, until Mother
Nature steps in with economically crippling oil prices.
It wont take a few hundred years. A few decades, or even a few years, is
all we have left before the constitutional checks and balances bounce.
Rod Speed
> Dutch wrote
>> There is scientific data and there are easy to watch documentaries,
>> it does not take a genius. Rod chooses to believe the anti-climate
>> change gang because of some predilection in him.
> Dr Freud noted that when you challenge the delusions of a neurotic, he gets angry, not educated.
And you are the proof of that in spades.
> Its not stupidity, but mental pathology mostly driven by testosterone overdose with a resulting instinct to want to
> dominate at a time when egalitarianism and peer-to-peer networks are taking over.
Doesnt explain why so much of it is senile old farts
like you that are WAY past any raging testosterone.
Its as mindlessly superficial as you other mindless line about the food
they ate as kids, the absolute vast bulk of the mindless ravers are
just as pathetically senile as you so that cant be the reason for it either.
> Freud also noted how ingenious neurotics are at explaining to themselves why they think like they do.
Yep, and you are the absolutely classic proof of that in spades.
You're the pathetic neurotic gnawing your fingernails to the
bone about WMD and high risk well off sectors of society.
> Because of an intolerance of ambiguity, they only find those 'facts' which comport with the predilections you refer
> to.
And you're the proof of that too with your utterly mindless ravings about witches and bull dykes.
>> The option is do we wish to attempt to make it till the next ice age or do want to just trash the place in the next
>> few hundred years like so many bad renters waiting for the sheriff.
> I'm almost 70, wont be around that much longer,
Thank christ for that.
> so its not a personal issue. But a pox on all their houses.
Usual mindless raving of the pathetically senile.
> The liberals, fearing charges of racism, have failed to stop population growth in any group except themselves.
Mindlessly silly. Even the ultra conservatives arent even self replacing on
population now right thruout the modern first world if you take out migration.
> And in democratic systems, its those groups with the highest birth rate that take over.
Pure fantasy. Most of them dont even bother to vote.
> That is, until Mother Nature steps in with unintended repercussions of resource mismanagement. At which point- its no
> longer a democracy.
Have fun explaining how come we havent seen anything like that in modern times.
> The Conservatives, now thats a real oxymoron, since Goldwater was the last who wanted to also conserve the
> environment,
Just as true of Democrats and Liberals.
> want to keep on with mindless consumption beyond sustainable levels. Again, until Mother Nature steps in with
> economically crippling oil prices.
Even sillier. There are no crippling oil prices anymore, stupid.
> It wont take a few hundred years. A few decades, or even a few years,
> is all we have left before the constitutional checks and balances bounce.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
We didnt even see that during the great depression and we had enough
of a clue to do something about a severe recession quickly this time.
ZerkonXXXX
> You recommend sugar-coating the destruction of human civilization? It's
> getting a little late for that
'sugar coating' now goes to the opposite extreme. Isn't this the basic
problem, thinking only in extremes?
Dutch
You presume that the extinction of the human species is a
momentous event, it's not. Our species will exist for a
finite period, and it will not be eons. We are simply
advancing that end date rapidly by our harsh treatment of
the very ecological underpinnings of our own survival.
Rod Speed
> ZerkonXXXX wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>> You recommend sugar-coating the destruction of human civilization?
>>> It's getting a little late for that
>> 'sugar coating' now goes to the opposite extreme. Isn't this the basic problem, thinking only in extremes?
> You presume that the extinction of the human species is a momentous event, it's not. Our species will exist for a
> finite period, and it will not be eons.
You dont know that yet. Some quite primitive lifeforms have already
lasted a hell of a long time like crocodiles for example. It wouldnt be
at all surprising if the species thats had FAR more control over its
environment than any other and has demonstrated an ability live
quite literally anywhere, end up outlasting all the rest.
> We are simply advancing that end date rapidly by our harsh treatment of the very ecological underpinnings of our own
> survival.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote
>> ZerkonXXXX wrote
>>> Dutch wrote
>
>>>> You recommend sugar-coating the destruction of human civilization?
>>>> It's getting a little late for that
>
>>> 'sugar coating' now goes to the opposite extreme. Isn't this the basic problem, thinking only in extremes?
>
>> You presume that the extinction of the human species is a momentous event, it's not. Our species will exist for a
>> finite period, and it will not be eons.
>
> You dont know that yet. Some quite primitive lifeforms have already
> lasted a hell of a long time like crocodiles for example. It wouldnt be
> at all surprising if the species thats had FAR more control over its
> environment than any other and has demonstrated an ability live
> quite literally anywhere, end up outlasting all the rest.
The primary control we have demonstrated over our
environment so far has been to damage it. We can't outlast
the rest, we depend on them.
>
>> We are simply advancing that end date rapidly by our harsh treatment of the very ecological underpinnings of our own
>> survival.
>
> Easy to claim.
Easier to deny
> Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
The evidence is massive and overwhelming, have fun finding a
body of evidence to support otherwise.
Day Brown
> The evidence is massive and overwhelming, have fun finding a body of
> evidence to support otherwise.
ecosytems. So, while you are certainly correct regarding the vast mass
of hominids, there will, as there has always been, some few who happen
to be in the right place at the right time.
Which we see indicated by the DNA bottleneck 75,000 years ago that
reduced hominids to something like 10,000 lines. That the posters here
will not survive, of course. But that's not the whole world, altho they
dont seem to realize it.