Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To me, whether you accept scientific data on climate change or not should be a moot point. We should be moving away from powering our economy with fossil fuels anyway. We should be using nuclear, solar, wind, fuel cells, bio-fuels, and geothermal to satisfy our energy needs. It will make for a cleaner environment, the country more independent and in control of our economy.
This I can agree with. I have no problem with replacing coal with nuclear (even though coal is clean anyway). I'm not too hot on wind, never was. Too unreliable and expensive and needs backup plants. Solar panels are the way to go, IMO, but their efficiency REALLY needs improving (unfortunately, they are also very toxic to produce). That being said, I hope we can achieve the best source of energy in the next 10 or so years: nuclear fusion.
This I can agree with. I have no problem with replacing coal with nuclear (even though coal is clean anyway). I'm not too hot on wind, never was. Too unreliable and expensive and needs backup plants. Solar panels are the way to go, IMO, but their efficiency REALLY needs improving (unfortunately, they are also very toxic to produce). That being said, I hope we can achieve the best source of energy in the next 10 or so years: nuclear fusion.
Cold fusion? I remember a movie in the 90s about that. And I read something not too long ago about thorium. It creates a lot of energy and destroys radioactive waste in the process.
Cold fusion? I remember a movie in the 90s about that. And I read something not too long ago about thorium. It creates a lot of energy and destroys radioactive waste in the process.
What if everyone in the world just up and became energy independant?
The Republican Party would like nothing more than to abolish all environmental laws and regulations so that businesses could pollute as much as they want.
This could very well be the most ignorant, misguided, devisive, and childish post I have seen since coming to this forum.
What if everyone in the world just up and became energy independant?
Wouldn't THAT be a fine how-do-you-do?
I got into a spot that I couldn't pay my gas bill and had to live with out central gas heat. I had to heat the water on the electric stove for my bath; heat my home with electric space heaters.
Think about what life was like before we had light switches, cars, central gas heat...would people really roll the clock backwards and live their life without these luxuries? Oh no, that would mean, no more Internet, omg how could we ever live without it? How did we live without it before it's invention? Imagine how hard it would be, or how nice it would be to not have that bill arrive in the mail. Money in the pockets of Americans vs the luxury items...
I got into a spot that I couldn't pay my gas bill and had to live with out central gas heat. I had to heat the water on the electric stove for my bath; heat my home with electric space heaters.
Think about what life was like before we had light switches, cars, central gas heat...would people really roll the clock backwards and live their life without these luxuries? Oh no, that would mean, no more Internet, omg how could we ever live without it? How did we live without it before it's invention? Imagine how hard it would be, or how nice it would be to not have that bill arrive in the mail. Money in the pockets of Americans vs the luxury items...
Your chart tells part of the story. It's a well known fact that as societies advance technologically, birth rates and populations stabilize, and in many cases, experience negative growth. It is the underdeveloped and third world nations that have shown most of the population increases. So, the logical course to take, if you believe there is an overpopulation problem, would be to assist those third world nations in technological development that would stabilize their population. But we don't do that ... we either let them wallow in primitive conditions, send them aid in just enough quantity that keeps them alive (but not enough to fix the problems) or we blow them up (if they have valuable resources to exploit).
As for this "Population Explosion" .... the only way one can say this is a real problem is if you think like the top 1/2 of 1% and believe the earth and all it's resources belongs to you, and that you don't want to share them with the useless eaters. The reality is, we've always had those that profess doom and gloom about sustainable population levels .... and they are always wrong. At one time, it was cautioned that anything over 3 Billion people would usher in global catastrophe .... now there are twice that many, and the only catastrophe occurring is constant war and environmental destruction by the controlling elite, and the human suffering that comes with it.
Yes, cities are crowded, and if we follow the globalist elite plans like Agenda 21, and their eugenics based "Sustainable Development", that will become the model for everyone, as vast amounts of land will be designated off limits to human habitation and use. This plan calls for concentrated population areas only, and the elimination of rural development.
Your concerns here simply mimic the programming we've all been exposed to ... that there are too many people and that we are the source of the environmental damage. But it's a total fraud. The people don't demand war .... we don't demand Nuclear weapons and Nuclear energy production. We don't advocate the REAL sources of environmental damage, and we were not behind the stone walling and blocking of alternative energy development that the mainstream energy corporations have engaged in for the past 40 years.
Had real efforts been made (rather than efforts blocked) ultra clean and environmentally neutral solar energy technology could have been advanced by this point to provide a great deal, if not the entire domestic energy demands. We could have had extremely well functioning electric cars that would cost a fraction of what traditional combustion engine autos cost both to operate and to maintain. The list goes on. Did the people advocate this? No ... the monopoly men who control the global economy by controlling energy were responsible. They just want you to accept responsibility ... to agree to cut back on your usage of their energy resources so that they can charge more for less. That's what is happening.
These elitists fully realize that there is a tipping point in the numbers of people they can effectively control ... and of course, the less people, the easier the job. They reckon that they need about 1 Billion workers to keep things running at peak efficiency and the rest are just unnecessary. So, convince the masses to self reduce and to accept over population and the need to engage drastic measures in order to save "Mother Earth", and we can carry the banner demanding our own destruction.
It just goes to show that the techniques of mind control and mass manipulation of public opinion can convince many people of almost anything .... including the need to give up their rights to self determination and even life itself.
Well, I don't know how I'm going to sound, but here goes:
I don't know much about history. I just started learning. But, whose fault is all of this? I know that the British Empire conquered a lot of people, and then the Europeans started fighting for turf and tried to get away from the Church of England (somebody was always running from religion, and good for them). The British and Europeans started civilizing everybody they ran into (well...) and the tribes of the lands they conquered stopped fighting each other and started fighting their conquerers. In some cases, in North America, the Indians fought with the French, or whatever, and then we started having enormous leaps in knowledge, which spread across the world like wildfire. Now, somewhere back in the early part of this century, people began fighting back against the British Empire, and they won, and in many parts of Africa, we now have complete chaos. People like Bill Gates and others go around trying to spread education, trying to get people to stop following their religions literally, but this is causing people to believe conspiracy is afoot, and they fight back even harder. So, no matter how many well-meaning people try to educate and enlighten people, there are just too many who fight back, worldwide. They keep on keeping on, consuming, fighting, bickering, trying to get more and more, so it's like we have millions of little empires, now; race against race, religion against religion, political side vs. political side, family against family, family member against family member, etc.
How in the world can we educate people who don't want to be educated, enlighten people who don't want to be enlightened, and how do we create less envious people and people who don't want to fight over turf. Who is going to live in the deserts, and who gets to live by the beach? That kind of thing.
I'm not sure where you are going with this conspiracy about the elite causing all of the destruction on purpose. It sounds to me like the human race is the cause of it's own downfall. It's not just one little group of people. It's all people. And, even if the world population were to level off, we can't consume, forever. We can't go on producing plastic, indefinetly. We can't go on living like we have been living, indefinitely. Can we?
This planet is obviously a very troubled place, and it's suffering. Like I said earlier in my posts on this thread; we are having massive deaths of trees worldwide, and this started before the invention of cell phones. We are all in trouble, and I don't think anybody really knows why. We can all point fingers at each other, or the elite, or whatever, but I don't hear any viable solutions.
How can we, as a group of people without any elites who control banking and water and energy and life itself, it seems, restore this planet?
I'm really wanting to understand the whole picture, and I'm really wanting to know what the answers are. I'm not a very educated person. I just started coming out of a very dark place in my own life, and my kids are almost grown (I had them very young), so I'm sitting here in my 30s, my children are looking for answers, I'm looking for answers, and all I find are conspiracy theories, bickering, and people trying to hold on to whatever they have by manipulating, obfuscating, and winking. I'm just tired of it all. I can see that the planet wilting and dying, and people are still fighting over who is right and who is wrong, and nothing is being done. The people who do control the world aren't any less hypocritical than the rest of us, for the most part, but some of them do seem to want to enlighten the people, but, there are too many sitting around with their arms crossed. Conservatives, liberals, black, white and purple. Doesn't matter. People are still people. Who is going to stop the madness?
To me, whether you accept scientific data on climate change or not should be a moot point. We should be moving away from powering our economy with fossil fuels anyway. We should be using nuclear, solar, wind, fuel cells, bio-fuels, and geothermal to satisfy our energy needs. It will make for a cleaner environment, the country more independent and in control of our economy.
Why? It's cheap, abundant and reliable. Wind, solar, fuel cells will NOT be able to meet the our energy consumption needs.
Nuclear? The Left/environmentalists have BLOCKED nuclear energy for decades now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
Not many scientists were predicting a "new ice age."
In FACT, over the last decade, there has been NO warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
Climate change, getting hotter, has been through the scientific process numerous times and keeps getting verified.
Nonsense. The Earth is cooling - why don't you know this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
Something like 98% of the scientific field involved with climate issues agrees with climate change and the causes for why it is happening. I don't remember 98% of scientists agreeing with there being a "new ice age."
Ah gawds.....not this again. You've been corrected I don't know how many times. Your 98% fantasy is made up of about 300-400 hundred scientists.
“The 97% ‘Consensus’ is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists” was a second look at the claim first made in January 2009, in a paper called “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Peter Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, from the department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois.
It was roundly de-bunked at the time by several commentators and it would have been forgotten and consigned to its proper place in the dustbin, if it hadn’t been continually quoted by activists as fact.
Some continue to make the claim.
I think the 98% is another bogus poll that involved 300 "scientists".
As I've already linked to an interview with the NONskeptic, Muller, I'd say it's a moot point.
Why? Because they are finite resources. Why should we build the foundation of our economy on resources that will run out? That's not sound economic policy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WOW!! UnidentifiableMale
