The Great "Global Warming" Scam

Sorry to say it DA, but I had almost forgotten your thread.
That was until today, when I read an article in a newspaper.

A bunch of young, beautiful blond girls in their late teens, just finished high school, said that they were going to become vegetarians.
They claimed that one kilograms of beef (2 pounds) generated 16,2 kilograms (33 pounds) of greenhouse gases, that means farts and burps from the cattle!
Therefore, red meat should be banned and everybody should become vegetarians!
Now, how stupid can one get? These girls have 12-13 years of education.

What's the difference?
We have to eat to live. If human beings eat the same amount of grass as cattle, dont you think we will produce the same amount of gases as the cattle?
Besides, cattle have a digestion system made to process grass, human beings don't have.
Basically, we are carnivores, so may be we will produce more gases than the cattle!

I'm not sure where Stefan is heading, but it doesn't matter what kind of Doomsday reports the evironmentalists present, the basic problem is that there are too many people on this planet.

The growth in the global population will increase exponentially during this century.

No matter what we do, we will sooner or later run out of food, metals, oil, coal, fresh water and air.
The earth will become a wasteland.
We have nowhere to go.
We live on this fragile little ball in the wast universe.
We have a limited amount of resources.

A certain amount of humanity, I don't know how many, will live well on these resources for a long time.
Who will these people be?

Today it is morally unacceptable to ask:
"How many people must die save the planet Earth"

Is it also morally unacceptable to ask:
"How many newborns we be allowed in the future?"

Who will be allowed to reproduce?
Do we see a master race living on earth?

What about the rest, the "Untermenschen", the subhumans?

Will "der Führer" finally get his ideas about "The Master Race" realized?

Regards
RAM

 

I'm sure I read that only 1/4 of the earth's landmass is populated, so if that's true it's not overpopulated, the population is just overconcentrated in too small an area.
Trouble is that if science found a way to make the other 3/4 habitable, this conversation would happen again in a few thousand years.
Then again, me and mine wouldn't be here to worry about it.

 

That's true. The average landmass of Norway is 600 meters (1800 feet) above sea level.

There is a reason why only a fraction of the population live there, and that reason is called snow and ice....

Regards
RAM

 

Making more space for people to live would have serious reprecussions... Where would the animals live then? Also, what kind of extra resources would we spend? remember, that many of the inhabited area
represents forests and such and if we took them down, we'd choke to death and that's a cientific fact


Cheers...

 

Here's 44 pages of "light" reading, that no one "wants" to hear/admit.

World Overpopulation Awareness (population)

the "Cause" of (pretty much) any problem you want to name.

 

Right!
This is what you never hear the environtamentalists talk about:
TOO MUCH PEOPLE ON THE PLANET!

Like the one that "used-to-be-the-next-president-of-the-USA", these guys don't have a clue what's its all about.
Having lived on the sunny side of life, they don't know the meaning of the word "sacrifice".

In the end, Pearl Harbor will look like a walk in the park.

RAM

 

Sad, but true.

 

This whole global warming thing is really not worth worrying about and I am not going to say anything substantial of it. Suffice to say that the worlds weather is changing, more energy is being added to the oceans and atmosphere. This will change the patterns of weather and make those patterns more energetic.

This is part of a naturally changing process, human activity has little if anything to do with it. Here on the coast of the NW and Canada there used to be many Indian tribes, they lived in villages along the coast, hunted whales, seals, fished and foraged the coastlines. It seems about 14000 years ago something started to change. The sea level began to rise. On the continental shelf they find numerous sites of these old villages under 100 to 250 ft of water dating back anywhere from 5000 to 15000 years ago. The earth is warming, it has been warming. What's the debate about?

What we need to do is consider our behavior in the here and now FOR OTHER REASONS, as is pointed out above. There are 6.7 BILLION PEOPLE on this earth. We are consuming the natural resources at a ridiculous rate, wasting them to satisfy all kinds of urges, squandering them for the future generations of this world.

This has to stop. Where are we going to go? Mars, Venus? Alpha Centauri? Wolfe 359? Epsilon Eridani? At the rate we are consuming resources will future generations be able to get to those places if they have to? We seriously need to stop what we are doing and THINK. WE DON'T HAVE A SPARE EARTH IN THE TRUNK OR GARAGE. This world is all we have, its all we may ever have.

 

From that same site, and this is just for the U.S.

VDARE.com: 02/07/08 - Can We Talk... About Population Numbers?

I hear the big plan to save social security is to add 100 million new immigrants. This is soooo liberal BS. No state so far can claim a profit from illegal immigrants. The cost is at least two-one against the collected tax, some times obscenely higher.
Tom Harkin (U.S.Senator/Iowa)(yes the same dork who wants to replace Rush Limbaugh with Rosie O'Donnel on AFR, or hold appropriations) and his Senate just passed the (wizardly fantastic) been here for 5 years or more, pay a 2,000$, everything's all better Bill.

I'll take that deal....on my death bed....retroactively....for life, and so would the rest of us!

Can & Will any politician address the subject of immigration/population and give an answer as to "What is Full?"

They wont, because more folks = more taxes, a bigger budget, and a raise for themselves.

Rats (us) in a cage (Earth). Let them populate uncontrolled and guess what happens?

 

Thanks, Kai. Obviously, whichever way they resolve the debate on the peer review process, it is a crucial part of publishing serious scientific papers in professional science journals.

 

I agree there are real reasons to be pessimistic about the environment, but it seems the ones the media latches on to are the least worrisome. Global warming? Yep, it's happening, doesn't seem to be much doubt about it. But so what, the planet's been warming up and cooling off in cycles for billions of years. We really don't know why, so why get excited about something we don't understand and probably won't be able to control anyway? Let's learn what we can about the issue and then decide what, if anything, to do about it.

However, your example illustrates my point very well; People who are ignorant of the real problems decide they want to "do something" without understanding the real problem and end up doing the wrong things. Same thing is happening with the silly "global warming" scare.

Human overpopulation seems to be an issue we can do something about, but the issue is going to be subject to much political, social, and economic wrangling which could easily lead to a series of wars. Wars? Maybe the problem is "self-solving"?

 

Thanks Scott, what you said and also "Revisionalist History" really is maddeninig that some folks are duped into thinking that stuff is real. :loco:

 

Just a footnote at the end of the discussion.

http://www.geoportalen.no/sfiles/24/54/1/file/climate_drivers.pdf

RAM

 

Very good explanation of the ideas I've been trying to get across.

Thanks, RAM!

 

oh look.
national park removes sign that says: "glaciers will all be gone by 2020"
National Park Quietly Removed Warning That Glaciers ‘Will All Be Gone’ By 2020 After Years Of Heavy Snowfall

also see al gore was in Australia for a talk about global warming.
they paid him 320k...
and it snowed.
known as the 'gore effect'

Al Gore Visits Australia to Preach About Global Warming; Snow Falls on Cue » 3CCorp.net

 

Trump told them to do that. I'm surprised that you are surprised.

 

Sigh...I love anecdotal thinking. It does not snow in Brisbane, the last recorded "snow", which was some flakes, fell on 21 September 1958. It does snow, occasionally, in South East Queensland, on average slightly more than once a year. That said, the incidence of snow fall since 1977 is lower than it was the previous 100 years. Oh, and BTW, it is late fall in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

Trump also thinks Glacier National Park is in Alaska.

 

Not sure why they were up in the first place, they are shrinking, but gone by 2020 is utter foolishness.
Area of the Named Glaciers of Glacier National Park (GNP) and Flathead National Forest (FNF) including Little Ice Age extent, and years 1966, 1998, 2005 and 2015

Grinnell Glacier is growing?

I'd say that's a big no...

 

I knew rich love me long time.
Mr t as well
(hug)