How man dominates the earth | ScienceDump

[Sam Wormley]

http://www.sciencedump.com/content/how-man-dominates-earth

> In the animation, "Welcome to the Anthropocene" we see the impact of 250 years of progress on our earth

[Tunderbar]

On May 3, 12:40 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.sciencedump.com/content/how-man-dominates-earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the animation, "Welcome to the Anthropocene" we see the impact of 250 years of progress on our earth

Evey organism on the planet survives and thrives by exploiting its
environment. Please explain why Mother Nature would expect us to be
any different.

[Falcon]

Sam Wormley wrote...

>
> http://www.sciencedump.com/content/how-man-dominates-earth
>
> > In the animation, "Welcome to the Anthropocene" we see the impact of 250
> > years of progress on our earth

Brilliant, Thanks for that.
What a species. What a success story.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

[Falcon]

Tunderbar wrote...

It's one of the best presentations I've seen in some time. Loved it.

[$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto]

On May 3, 1:40 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.sciencedump.com/content/how-man-dominates-earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the animation, "Welcome to the Anthropocene" we see the impact of 250 years of progress on our earth

The earthworm has more of an effect on the planet than man.

[Bill Snyder]

Jog my memory. How many species has the earthworm driven extinct,
in round numbers? What part did the earthworm play in turning the
Sahara Forest into the Sahara Desert? How much of the rainforests
are earthworms chopping down per year?


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[hanson]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4FA2C312...@gmail.com...

<http://www.sciencedump.com/content/how-man-dominates-earth>
"In the animation, "Welcome to the Anthropocene" we
see the impact of 250 years of progress on our earth"
>

hanson wrote:
Wonderful. So, why and what are you crying about,
all the time then, Sam? Did Al Gore, the Sierra Club,
ugly Kennedy's NRDC and other Enviro scam-fartists
who railed up hordes of little Green idiots, take a toll
on you?-Pity, Sam. Don't let it get to you. Go fuck'em!

[Tunderbar]

On May 3, 2:55 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012 12:43:34 -0700 (PDT), "$27 TRILLION to pay for
>

> Kyoto" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 3, 1:40 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.sciencedump.com/content/how-man-dominates-earth
>
> >> > In the animation, "Welcome to the Anthropocene" we see the impact of 250 years of progress on our earth
>
> >The earthworm has more of an effect on the planet than man.
>
> Jog my memory.  How many species has the earthworm driven extinct,
> in round numbers?  What part did the earthworm play in turning the
> Sahara Forest into the Sahara Desert?  How much of the rainforests
> are earthworms chopping down per year?
>
> --
> Bill Snyder  [This space unintentionally left blank]

The earthworm hasn't wasted resources counting and neither should we.

[RedAcer]

How many people can the planet support if everyone wants the same
standard of living as the USA ?

[Sam Wormley]

The earthworm has a *positive* effect on ecosystems it is a part of.

[G=EMC^2]

We must have more bees. Reality is they are dying. Treb=Bert

[hanson]

"RedFacer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
:
>> On May 3, 12:40 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.sciencedump.com/content/how-man-dominates-earth
>>>> In the animation, "Welcome to the Anthropocene" we
>>>> see the impact of 250 years of progress on our earth
>>
> On 03/05/12 18:51, Tunderbar wrote:
>> Evey organism on the planet survives and thrives by
>> exploiting its environment. Please explain why Mother
>> Nature would expect us to be any different.
>

Enviro Red Faced "RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> How many people can the planet support if everyone
> wants the same standard of living as the USA ?
>

hanson wrote:
If all the Green Shits, Enviro-Turds, AGW-Pimps,
OceAcid-Whores, PETAsses and ARAs become
extinct your question will be mute, actually it will
not even arise.

[James]

"RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jnusdc$baj$1...@speranza.aioe.org

I don't understand the question. What has overpopulation have to do with
what people want?

[bjacoby]

This is about the most disgusting "propaganda dump" I've seen yet. No
wonder Wormley is having an orgasm.

It's got every trick in the book to convince the viewer that these pure
prevarications are "science". It just makes you want to grab them by the
shoulders and shake them!

First we start with a great new name: Anthropocene. The old scientific
term holocene isn't good enough anymore! It doesn't have enough
propaganda political pizazz. So we make up a new term that "some
scientists use" according to that infallible political reference
Wikipedia. So just like biology and medicine where common names for
ordinary organs or items won't do, and you have to re-name everything to
turn it into "science", now here we start with a new name to try to make
politics SOUND as if it's science! It is NOT science.

It's the same trick they used by inventing the name "anthropogenic
global warming". How clever. You set the terminology yourself at the
beginning so that anyone who uses it is actually ADMITTING that warming
is man-caused! Cute. These guys are pros at this.

And then we begin to describe the present era in an alarmist manner but
being careful to not say anything that "deniers" might point to as lies.
So they note CO2 levels are rising. They are, but it's still a MINOR
green house gas and a MINOR constituent of the atmosphere. They note
that temperatures are rising. They are about 1 degree per 100 years.
(ice age is over). Then note that oceans are rising. They are and have
been since the end of the ice age and now they've slowed down to 2mm or
less a year. It's a wonder they didn't talk about stopping the glaciers
from receding. And they talk about destruction of ozone.

But totally missing in this report is the ironic fact that the VERY
people behind this propaganda for a massive energy tax are the VERY
robber barons and banksters that did the most to CAUSE any problems
there might be. They are trying to blame these problems (however minor
they may be, they are still real) on YOU. The banksters have had a
policy for eons now of loaning Third World countries vast sums that they
KNOW will be wasted, and then to repay the debts, they demand natural
resources of the country as payment. Bottom line all the rain forests
get cut down. They don't regrow. And do they use the wood for fine
furniture or quality musical instruments? Nope they BAN that use, and
instead use these ancient trees to make plywood for cement forms for
construction (that suits their plans) in Asia! No trees. CO2 SOARS. And
they BLAME YOU for driving your car and watching your stupid TV.

So the Chemical robber barons invent flourinated hydrocarbons as "neat
stuff" but then make so many gigaTONS of it that they destroy the ozone
in the atmosphere protecting us all. Sheep in the southern hemisphere go
blind. People start to get cataracts. You can SMELL the increased Ozone
from the unblocked UV even in North America. Yes, they did panic and
yes, the did stop production of the worst ones. But they BLAMED YOU! It
was YOUR deodorants that caused the problem! The military space shuttle
launches never stopped with EACH launch doing more OZONE damage than all
the deodorants put together. But political power is what is important at
ANY cost. I tell you true, these people would DESTROY the entire planet
leaving it uninhabitable by ANY life rather than give up their
rulership. They HAVE that power!

And how did they get it? Atomic energy. When atomic power was suggested
for electricity, safe reactors could have been built. The technology IS
there. But there was just one tiny problem. How can you built 50,000
atomic bombs unless you use atomic power plants to supply your
materials. Goodby safe fossil fuel free electricity. The end result was
the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant complex disaster. And that's
just ONE incident. Early on those in power in the U.S. showed their
respect for the environment and planet, by exploding thousands of
nuclear bombs in it, plus several explosions in space that created a
radioactive belt that is still there. And that was done in total
violation of the test ban treaty. Political power trumps all morality
and honesty. Who knows if that radiation belt is what has upset the
climate balance on the planet?

And now those who caused the problem now demand punitive energy taxes.
Why, to fix what they did? Hardly. They KNOW CO2 is not a problem, but
they can't tax themselves for creating a radiation belt can they? So
they plan to collect vast sums to install a world wide dictatorship with
THEM in charge rather than fix what they did. They do NOT care if you
starve. They think there are too many people anyway and have plans to
kill a couple of billion. Some of the dead probably will be YOU.

And the bottom line here is this slick piece of political propaganda
propaganda masquerading as "science". And you see them here like
lemmings running to the cliff and sheep led to slaughter saying this is
the BEST piece they've ever seen. Sure. Only two explanations for that
one. 1. Paid writers. 2. Extremely stupid humans. EVERY true scientist
should be screaming their heads off at the perversion of true science to
politics this "dump" represents.

And what will the "strategic writers" say about all this? Will they
supply scientific refutation? Nope. They will say I'm insane. I'm a
"Bushite". I'm on drugs. And I'm uneducated and ignorant beyond belief.
Will you believe some anonymous voice on the internet simply because
they SAY they are intelligent and they SAY they are correct and they SAY
that everyone else is wrong and they SAY that they won't like you
anymore and may call YOU slanderous and despicable names if you don't
agree with them.

And what are YOU going to do? Be a scared pussy and go along to get
along? That's what they hope. Everything I said above even though it
clearly IS extreme, can be PROVED to be true if you take time to
actually do the research. If you are too lazy, well then send your
checks to Wormley's one-man "foundation". He'll put it to "good" use.

And I know, I've heard it all before. If I write more than three lines
on USENET, NOBODY can bother to actually read it. We are a nation
convinced by clever soundbites now and thinking, well, it's discouraged.

[RedAcer]

Think about it. How many people can live in your house at the same
time? Can they all have what they want?
I have an allotment and I grow most of the vegetables my family eats. I
couldn't feed the whole of Cheltenham where I live.

Now back to my question. Think of the things that an average American
might require for a good standard of living. If the earth's population
increases from 7 billion to 500 billion can they all have the same
standard of living and have no effect on the planet? What effect might
there be on resources, wildlife ....
The planet has a 'carrying capacity' just as your house does.

[Falcon]

RedAcer wrote...

>
> On 04/05/12 03:39, James wrote:
> > "RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

[..]

> >> How many people can the planet support if everyone wants the same
> >> standard of living as the USA ?
> >
> > I don't understand the question. What has overpopulation have to do with
> > what people want?
>
> Think about it. How many people can live in your house at the same
> time? Can they all have what they want?
>
> I have an allotment and I grow most of the vegetables my family eats. I
> couldn't feed the whole of Cheltenham where I live.

Every garden and yard in Cheltenham turned over to growing food probably could.
The analogy you used (your allotment and feeding the whole of Cheltenham)
suggests that the USA couldn't feed the whole world. I don't think anyone would
suggest it could.

> Now back to my question. Think of the things that an average American
> might require for a good standard of living. If the earth's population
> increases from 7 billion to 500 billion can they all have the same
> standard of living and have no effect on the planet? What effect might
> there be on resources, wildlife ....

I think 9 billion might cause a problem, never mind an imaginary 500 billion.
But why does the environmentalist believe that we should have no effect on the
planet? The building of a town has an effect, the cultivation of land has an
effect, the damming of a river to provide water has an effect, the building of
thousands of offshore wind turbines has an effect. Everything we do has an
effect.

> The planet has a 'carrying capacity' just as your house does.

I agree. How do you suggest we control the world's population?

[Androcles]

"Falcon" <fal...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a0da79d2...@news.plus.net...

You can't. Nature has a way, though. The locusts
swarm and eat everything they see, then they starve.
The OP's concern is for the average American locust
which requires a good standard of living, he doesn't
care about the average European locust or the average
Asian locust or the average African locust. He'll send
his $5 to appease his conscience and give a little third world
locust a chance at water and an meagre existence without
realising that by the time his president has had two terms
of office that little third world locust with the hungry mouth
has given birth to another hungry mouth, and part of his
Xmas $5 goes to medicine to keep the hungry mouth alive
without sterilising the parent first. The net result is the locusts
all kill each other for what food there is and then they starve
and die.

[RedAcer]

On 04/05/12 09:45, Falcon wrote:
> RedAcer wrote...
>>
>> On 04/05/12 03:39, James wrote:
>>> "RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> [..]
>>>> How many people can the planet support if everyone wants the same
>>>> standard of living as the USA ?
>>>
>>> I don't understand the question. What has overpopulation have to do with
>>> what people want?
>>
>> Think about it. How many people can live in your house at the same
>> time? Can they all have what they want?
>>
>> I have an allotment and I grow most of the vegetables my family eats. I
>> couldn't feed the whole of Cheltenham where I live.
>
> Every garden and yard in Cheltenham turned over to growing food probably could.
> The analogy you used (your allotment and feeding the whole of Cheltenham)
> suggests that the USA couldn't feed the whole world. I don't think anyone would
> suggest it could.

Not very responsive. James said he didn't understand the question. Mine
was just a simple analogy saying that finite resources produce finite
output. In any case your example is wrong. My garden is bigger than the
average garden and its no where near big enough to feed my family.

>
>> Now back to my question. Think of the things that an average American
>> might require for a good standard of living. If the earth's population
>> increases from 7 billion to 500 billion can they all have the same
>> standard of living and have no effect on the planet? What effect might
>> there be on resources, wildlife ....
>
> I think 9 billion might cause a problem, never mind an imaginary 500 billion.
> But why does the environmentalist believe that we should have no effect on the
> planet? The building of a town has an effect, the cultivation of land has an
> effect, the damming of a river to provide water has an effect, the building of
> thousands of offshore wind turbines has an effect. Everything we do has an
> effect.

I never said that we shouldn't have any effect on the planet? The point
of the film was that there are now so many people on the planet that we
are having a major impact on the environment and resources. Ergo we
should think carefully about what we are doing and what impact we are
having.

>
>> The planet has a 'carrying capacity' just as your house does.
>
> I agree. How do you suggest we control the world's population?

Our governments should do every thing they can to improve the education
of women in poorer countries. There is very strong evidence that when
women learn to read and write and get a basic education they then reduce
their family size - this is possible ?

Unfortunately some religions are causing a big increase in population
so we should mount a propaganda campaign against the Catholic Church and
Islam. That's where women are least free to control their lives. Not
very practical unfortunately.

>

[G=EMC^2]

!50,000 years ago humankind dominated the Earth. Fact is he needed no
food stamps,and eat better than today. He ate Maine lobster. Buffalo
meat Every kind of fish. Could live every where that he liked. He
had a very easy life. No Severn Trent Water bills. No Progress Energy
polluting the air and killing his children. His only foe was his own
kind. He had fears,and to combat these fears he created Gods. In
reality he should have feared the Gods he created. They became the
biggest killers. Now 150,000 years later. we are stuck with these
Gods. Humankind will be destroyed in the name of God. So sad so true
Think 9/11 Think James Town Think Nazi Germany Treb+Bert

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/4/12 7:17 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> !50,000 years ago humankind dominated the Earth. Fact is he needed no
> food stamps,and eat better than today. He ate Maine lobster. Buffalo
> meat Every kind of fish. Could live every where that he liked. He
> had a very easy life.

I don't think life was easy, Herb.

[Tunderbar]

And homo sapiens is not "part of it"? Hell, we're the king of the hill
of Earthly organisms. Numero uno. The Prime Predator. Mother Nature
put us here for a reason. Why do you insist that man is an aberration
on this planet?

[bjacoby]

Don't worry, Sam, it's just a bit of the old geezer-talk.

As it turned out, 50,000 years ago man so dominated the earth that
through environmental abuse (just like today) the balance was so upset
that the entire continent sank beneath the ocean. Human bodies floated
in masses like seaweed upon the waves. We should be so lucky.

[HVAC]

On 5/4/2012 10:05 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:

It was brutal. Maybe 10% of humans lived to be 20 years old.
30 years old was about the average life expectancy. A 40 year
old was a village elder. A broken leg or a bad cold was often
fatal. It appears that there was a time when the human population
was down to about maybe 2000 people. No showers, no plumbing at
all. None of the things we take for granted today. This condition
has really only turned around in the last 100 years for the majority
of people on Earth.









--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[Hägar]

"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jo1b6c$sv4$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...

> On 5/4/2012 10:05 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 5/4/12 7:17 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>> !50,000 years ago humankind dominated the Earth. Fact is he needed no
>>> food stamps,and eat better than today. He ate Maine lobster. Buffalo
>>> meat Every kind of fish. Could live every where that he liked. He
>>> had a very easy life.
>>
>> I don't think life was easy, Herb.
>
>
> It was brutal. Maybe 10% of humans lived to be 20 years old.
> 30 years old was about the average life expectancy. A 40 year
> old was a village elder. A broken leg or a bad cold was often
> fatal. It appears that there was a time when the human population
> was down to about maybe 2000 people. No showers, no plumbing at
> all. None of the things we take for granted today. This condition
> has really only turned around in the last 100 years for the majority
> of people on Earth.

Not to forget that people like treBeet didn't get a brain until 80-odd years
ago and that AA is still dumpster diving for survival.

[HVAC]

On 5/4/2012 4:46 PM, Hägar wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I don't think life was easy, Herb.
>>
>>
>> It was brutal. Maybe 10% of humans lived to be 20 years old.
>> 30 years old was about the average life expectancy. A 40 year
>> old was a village elder. A broken leg or a bad cold was often
>> fatal. It appears that there was a time when the human population
>> was down to about maybe 2000 people. No showers, no plumbing at
>> all. None of the things we take for granted today. This condition
>> has really only turned around in the last 100 years for the majority
>> of people on Earth.
>
>
> Not to forget that people like treBeet didn't get a brain until 80-odd years
> ago and that AA is still dumpster diving for survival.

AA would have done well. Humans scavenged lots of food.

Bert....Not so much. He would have gone off crying about
Seven Trents mafia and a sabre cat would sneak up and snap
his head off.

[G=EMC^2]

50,000 years ago there was no Progress Energy giving children lung
cancer. There were no children thrown out of the cave. No 1% that
owned 99% and would not share. They were free to roam the Earth,and
roam they did. They might have had bullies,but they never had the
likes of Severn Trent Mafia. Treb=Bert

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/4/12 7:17 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:

> !50,000 years ago humankind dominated the Earth. Fact is he needed no
> food stamps,and eat better than today.

Few lived for 40 years. Rotting teeth, bitter cold, blistering heat,
always having to find food and water. You wouldn't have lasted half
your years, Herb.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/4/12 5:39 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
> 50,000 years ago there was no Progress Energy giving children lung
> cancer.

50,000 ago people died young--not old enough to die from most cancers.

[James]

"bjacoby" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:JbIor.37420$mL3....@newsfe23.iad

A whole renaming process has hatched and is ongoing. I think it started
in the 70s when someone was advocating running every day and mentioned a
'runners high'. It turns out it used to be called simply a 'second wind'
that people got running occasionally, but somebody wrote a book and we
ended up with a better sounding description. Now we have 'undocumented
aliens' instead of 'illegal residents' etc. The list is big. Same type
of people. Make it sound better or worse depending on your view. It's a
form of indoctrination.

[Hägar]

"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jo1g9a$skm$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...

> On 5/4/2012 4:46 PM, Hägar wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think life was easy, Herb.
>>>
>>>
>>> It was brutal. Maybe 10% of humans lived to be 20 years old.
>>> 30 years old was about the average life expectancy. A 40 year
>>> old was a village elder. A broken leg or a bad cold was often
>>> fatal. It appears that there was a time when the human population
>>> was down to about maybe 2000 people. No showers, no plumbing at
>>> all. None of the things we take for granted today. This condition
>>> has really only turned around in the last 100 years for the majority
>>> of people on Earth.
>>
>>
>> Not to forget that people like treBeet didn't get a brain until 80-odd
>> years
>> ago and that AA is still dumpster diving for survival.
>
>
> AA would have done well. Humans scavenged lots of food.
>
> Bert....Not so much. He would have gone off crying about
> Seven Trents mafia and a sabre cat would sneak up and snap
> his head off.

Just the thought of that gives me a "Warm-'n Fuzzy" ...

[G=EMC^2]

Sam Cigs give lung cancer. Progress Energy the world's worse
polluter of air (test done by U of Mass.) will not spend money for
filters to clean up all that smoke from burning cheap coal. Its that
GOP motto. "Life is cheap,but a buck is a buck." Is the greed for
more and more money so great that we can let children die of lung
cancer? Where is our sense of values.? Treb=Bert

[HVAC]

On 5/7/2012 6:11 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>
>>> 50,000 years ago there was no Progress Energy giving children lung
>>> cancer.
>>
>> 50,000 ago people died young--not old enough to die from most cancers.
>
> Sam Cigs give lung cancer.

Breathing the smoke from cooking/heating fires does not?