TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- An Inconvenient Truth debunked by....a 15 yr old...
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
An Inconvenient Truth debunked by....a 15 yr old...
An Inconvenient Debunking lol...
| quote: |
Ponder the Maunder  Houston, we've got a problem! Astronomer, physicist, mathematician, and �father of global warming.� James Hansen seems to have a busy life for someone from Iowa. But the real question seems to be is whether or not Hansen is too busy to realize what he is actually saying to the public. As Hansen attempts to seduce, exaggerate, and alarm the public, some people (like me) attempt to inform the public of the reality of global warming, its impacts, and now, the truth behind James Hansen. Dr. Hansen was born 1941 and grew up in Iowa. He has a Bachelors in Physics and Mathematics, Masters in Astronomy, and a Ph.D. in Physics under Dr. James Van Allen. Most importantly he is the head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. http://www.answers.com/topic/james-hansen http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/s...977ee7f&ei=5088 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html �The fun in science is to explore a topic from all angles and figure out how something works. To do this well, a scientist learns to be open-minded, ignoring prejudices that might be imposed by religious, political or other tendencies (Galileo being a model of excellence).� Hansen wrote this statement in 1999 in �The Global Warming Debate�. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ Hansen claims that he is an �independent�, but he seems to be the only person who believes it. Readers may already be aware of this, but if not� James Hansen was granted a quarter of a million dollars from the Heinz Environment Award a.k.a. U. S. Senator and former Presidential Candidate John Kerry�s wife�s foundation. You know the old saying; �nothing in politics is free.� So my first question is: what did he do to get the quarter of a million dollars? Was it the price for switching his political standing from �independent� to democratic when he later endorsed John Kerry for President? Was it payment for interpreting his department�s data in a way that would benefit his political friends? More evidence of his connections to the Democratic Party was his endorsement of Al Gore�s presidential campaign in 2000. James Hansen was also a science advisor to Al Gore�s movie An Inconvenient Truth. I watched that movie six times and thoroughly researched the claims that Al Gore made. I came to the conclusion that his movie misinterpreted a whole area of science and should not be shown in schools. This leads to a number of questions. Did they really think the people of the world would be so blind? Did they think that the world would spend enormous resources solving a problem without first looking it over carefully? http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics...L20060323a.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006...985_page2.shtml James Hansen is a scientist who admittedly uses scare tactics to convince the public that global warming will be �potentially disastrous�. Consider this statement from Hansen in his own document called �Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?� in August of 2003. �Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.� http://naturalscience.com/ns/articl...16/ns_jeh6.html Despite this statement several years ago, Hansen continues to make extreme claims. One such claim that contradicts even AGW scientists is that sea level is and will remain rising one meter per 20 years, as was stated by Hansen in an interview with Der Spiegel in April of 2007. AGW scientists at the IPCC are claiming that sea levels will rise between .09 and .88 meters in the next century. http://www.spiegel.de/international...,476275,00.html http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html There are two main pieces of evidence that James Hansen uses to claim that global warming exists. First, the observations of receding glaciers and thinning ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica. �All glaciers in America's Glacier National Park are retreating inexorably to their final demise. Global warming is real, and the melting ice is a portent of potentially disastrous consequences.� I have read many articles where Hansen makes such statements, including those on the NASA GISS site, and never does he mention that all of these ice masses have been receding for over 100 years since the end of the Little Ice Age. Next question: Does he consistently fail to mention this very important information because it indicates a natural cause of warming? http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html The second area of evidence that is used to prove global warming is surface temperature. It is important to understand that global warming has been measured in tenths of degrees, .77 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. There has been a great deal of controversy about the accuracy of the temperature data, mainly the bias of temperature data due to urban heat island effect. This controversy has lead many to focus on rural temperature stations. Rural stations are intended to represent the cool breezy countryside, small towns, farms, trees and grass. In recent weeks, researchers have been visiting these temperature stations. What they noticed was that there are serious problems with the quality of these temperature stations. They noticed that many of these temperature stations were located next to concrete buildings, near hot exhausts of air conditioning units, attached to metal towers and poles, surrounded by driveways and above gravel. When I looked at the photos taken from the ground and backed up by satellite photos, I was shocked. Have you ever walked on pavement on a sunny day and wanted to move quickly to the grass because of the uncomfortable heat? Have you ever touched a metal fence post on a sunny day and noticed how hot it gets? The photos of these temperature stations are not just a few of many; they are the first few dozen that have been visited. About 80% of the temperature stations that have been visited and photographed have serious quality problems. This brings up some more questions: How many tenths of a degree will temperatures rise when the thermometer is near the hot exhaust of an AC unit? Or how about when it is located above gravel or near a paved road or driveway? How many tenths of a degree will the temperature rise when the thermometer is above pavement and surrounded by buildings (no wind)? And in one case, as documented by the photograph below, how many tenths of a degree will the temperature rise when the caretaker of the facility burns trash in a metal barrel just 5 feet away from the temperature station?  Houston, weve got a problem! NASA GISS Temperature Station # 425724880010 Is this what they mean by man made global warming? Is this the kind of quality we expect from NASA? Many of the photos described above can be found at ClimateAudit by Steve McIntyre. I do not always agree with Steve but on this one he is right on the mark. I strongly encourage people to visit his site at the links below. While you are there, notice the little �tip jar� in the upper left hand corner of his page. It�s there because he is not funded by the oil industry. There is also discussion on his website about very questionable adjustments to the temperature records. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1616#comments http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1603#comments http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1628#more-1628 Many of the same photos can be found at the weblog of Anthony Watts http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/20...perature_2.html Mr. Watts is also organizing another website: http://www.surfacestations.org/Default.htm The photographs discussed above are good evidence that there are quality control problems with the Global and US Historical Climate Network stations. It is quite apparent that the installers and caretakers of these temperature stations lack training and understanding in rural temperature measuring. This seems to be the first problem that needs to be resolved. The second problem is the adjustments that scientists, particularly James Hansen, have made to the temperature record. The third problem is how to fix the problem of exactly what the temperature record should be since the evidence clearly demonstrates that the human errors have made temperatures appear warmer. How you can help The only way these problems will be resolved is by making each and every one of your voices heard. We want to resolve the problem and not escalate the current arguing. Dr. Hansen needs to set his politics aside and give us the corrections that are needed. You can send comments to James Hansen at his NASA GISS email. Please be polite. mailto:[email protected] You can also send your thoughts: Attention NASA Administrator Michael Griffin: [email protected] |
Wait...so she's saying Greenland isn't melting even though it is?
yeah, the 15 year old should know. 
She linked Dr. Hansen to democrats, proved that he makes stretched arguments and basis his global warming arguments on a bunch of faulty temperature stations. How stupid of the NASA Director of Goddard Institute for Space Studies!
Perhaps the girl should start reading his peer reviewed publications on global warming which span over two decades.
I blame google.
aren't other planets getting warmer as well?
I really don't understand the anti-climate change movement, I really don't. Anthropogenic climate change is virtually indisputable. Now irrespective of whether the primary contributor to this is man-made or not, the effect of anthropoegenic climate change is quite visible. Fine, it's not caused by man, but never the less the effect is still disastrous upon mankind. Something that Al Gore's movie made quite clear to us based upon scientific calculations of the figures involved. Is the Earth's population NOT increasing exponentially? Are our emissions not increasing exponentially? Are we to presume that this will have NO effect on the environment?? FFS beyond global warming population expansion has decimated natural wildlife.
So why would one advocate NOT searching for a solution based upon the fact that one would think that it is our obligation to attempt to preserve our conservative way of life for us and our children? Can anyone here say that they are legitimately unconcerned with the environemnt and are perfectly willing to go forth with the status quo because it is simply not contributing to any damages whatsover???
God, I don't have kids and nor do I plan on having any. Therefore I hope to god that you people who don't give a shit are right because you have the most to lose.
^ +1
Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
Is it just me or do global warming sceptics structure their arguments in a similar fashion to those Creationist people?? i.e. starting with a concluding comment and then trying to justify it by criticising others work
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 ^ +1 Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Fine, it's not caused by man, but never the less the effect is still disastrous upon mankind. Something that Al Gore's movie made quite clear to us based upon scientific calculations of the figures involved. |
| quote: |
| Is the Earth's population NOT increasing exponentially? |
| quote: |
| FFS beyond global warming population expansion has decimated natural wildlife. |
| quote: |
| So why would one advocate NOT searching for a solution based upon the fact that one would think that it is our obligation to attempt to preserve our conservative way of life for us and our children? Can anyone here say that they are legitimately unconcerned with the environemnt and are perfectly willing to go forth with the status quo because it is simply not contributing to any damages whatsover??? |
| quote: |
| God, I don't have kids and nor do I plan on having any. Therefore I hope to god that you people who don't give a shit are right because you have the most to lose. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Well I'm glad you're more in the conservation camp and aren't advocating carbon trading as a viable solution! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Is it? I haven't seen the movie. Just playing devil's advocate, but the pushback you'd receive there is, "If I'm not causing it, what's the point of changing my behavior?" I'm sure you can make a fine argument, I'm just pointing out the likely pushback to that concession. |
| quote: |
Is it? That's a very broad brush stroke. Most developed countries' populations aren't increasing that fast. In fact, Mark Steyn makes a very compelling argument that many developed nations have actually sunken below a critical growth rate of 2.1 children per household that will ultimately cause their populations to go into secular, and possibly terminal decline. Where the birthrate is extremely high, however, is in many hostile, muslim nations. I don't want to get into a geopolitical argument, but let's get the facts straight before we attack the subject with a blunt object. |
| quote: |
Perhaps, but species have been going into extinction since the dawn of time. Darwinism is alive and well, regardless of any exogenous influences. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX It's not a matter of it being caused by someone or not, it's a matter of it being immoral. You could analyze the situation using your favorite ethical system, whichever one it might be, and it would still ibe wrong. |
| quote: |
| That is true. The problem is the rate at which extinction's is happening and the speed with which a species disappears. 'Natural' extinction doesn't happen in a couple of months, man made extinction can. The problem that arises from that is that the ecosystem has little time to adapt, since that species probably played some role in it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dupz Is it just me or do global warming sceptics structure their arguments in a similar fashion to those Creationist people?? i.e. starting with a concluding comment and then trying to justify it by criticising others work |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Is it? That's a very broad brush stroke. Most developed countries' populations aren't increasing that fast. In fact, Mark Steyn makes a very compelling argument that many developed nations have actually sunken below a critical growth rate of 2.1 children per household that will ultimately cause their populations to go into secular, and possibly terminal decline. Where the birthrate is extremely high, however, is in many hostile, muslim nations. I don't want to get into a geopolitical argument, but let's get the facts straight before we attack the subject with a blunt object. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Haunted never has there been so many people living on earth. i think the doubters are still suffering from the human ego syndrome. we are humans! we're #1! YEAH!! we can do no harm because the earth was made for us! yes, we can and we did. some people even say that cows produce more Co2 then cars.. well, who raised all those cows? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Haunted never has there been so many people living on earth. i think the doubters are still suffering from the human ego syndrome. we are humans! we're #1! YEAH!! we can do no harm because the earth was made for us! yes, we can and we did. some people even say that cows produce more Co2 then cars.. well, who raised all those cows? |
Perhaps this is more instructive...
Here are some tables to go with it.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/p...ople-birth-rate
http://www.ed-u.com/birth-rates.htm
| quote: |
Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom) #1 Niger: 50.16 births/1,000 population #2 Mali: 49.61 births/1,000 population #3 Uganda: 48.12 births/1,000 population #4 Afghanistan: 46.21 births/1,000 population #5 Sierra Leone: 45.41 births/1,000 population #6 Burkina Faso: 45.28 births/1,000 population #7 Somalia: 44.6 births/1,000 population #8 Angola: 44.51 births/1,000 population #9 Liberia: 43.75 births/1,000 population #10 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 42.96 births/1,000 population #11 Yemen: 42.67 births/1,000 population #12 Chad: 42.35 births/1,000 population #13 Congo, Republic of the: 42.16 births/1,000 population #14 Malawi: 42.09 births/1,000 population #15 Burundi: 41.97 births/1,000 population #16 Guinea: 41.53 births/1,000 population #17 Zambia: 40.78 births/1,000 population #18 Mauritania: 40.56 births/1,000 population #19 Mayotte: 40.35 births/1,000 population #20 Nigeria: 40.2 births/1,000 population #21 Rwanda: 40.16 births/1,000 population #22 S�o Tom� and Pr�ncipe: 39.72 births/1,000 population #23 Djibouti: 39.07 births/1,000 population #24 Kenya: 38.94 births/1,000 population #25 Gaza Strip: 38.9 births/1,000 population #26 Gambia, The: 38.86 births/1,000 population #27 Madagascar: 38.6 births/1,000 population #28 Mozambique: 38.54 births/1,000 population #29 Benin: 38.1 births/1,000 population #30 Senegal: 37.4 births/1,000 population #31 Ethiopia: 37.39 births/1,000 population #32 Togo: 36.83 births/1,000 population #33 Guinea-Bissau: 36.81 births/1,000 population #34 Comoros: 36.35 births/1,000 population #35 Gabon: 35.96 births/1,000 population #36 Tanzania: 35.95 births/1,000 population #37 Haiti: 35.87 births/1,000 population #38 Oman: 35.76 births/1,000 population #39 Equatorial Guinea: 35.16 births/1,000 population #40 Cameroon: 35.07 births/1,000 population #41 Laos: 34.98 births/1,000 population #42 Sudan: 34.86 births/1,000 population #43 C�te d'Ivoire: 34.69 births/1,000 population #44 Maldives: 34.2 births/1,000 population #45 Eritrea: 33.97 births/1,000 population #46 Central African Republic: 33.52 births/1,000 population #47 Bhutan: 33.28 births/1,000 population #48 Marshall Islands: 32.37 births/1,000 population #49 Iraq: 31.44 births/1,000 population #50 West Bank: 30.99 births/1,000 population #51 Kiribati: 30.48 births/1,000 population #52 Nepal: 30.46 births/1,000 population #53 Ghana: 29.85 births/1,000 population #54 Bangladesh: 29.36 births/1,000 population #55 Solomon Islands: 29.27 births/1,000 population #56 Saudi Arabia: 29.1 births/1,000 population #57 Guatemala: 29.09 births/1,000 population #58 Paraguay: 28.77 births/1,000 population #59 Papua New Guinea: 28.76 births/1,000 population #60 Belize: 28.34 births/1,000 population #61 Samoa: 28.28 births/1,000 population #62 Zimbabwe: 27.72 births/1,000 population #63 Honduras: 27.59 births/1,000 population #64 Pakistan: 27.52 births/1,000 population #65 Tajikistan: 27.33 births/1,000 population #66 Syria: 27.19 births/1,000 population #67 Swaziland: 26.98 births/1,000 population #68 East Timor: 26.77 births/1,000 population #69 Uzbekistan: 26.46 births/1,000 population #70 El Salvador: 26.13 births/1,000 population #71 Libya: 26.09 births/1,000 population #72 Cambodia: 25.53 births/1,000 population #73 Turkmenistan: 25.36 births/1,000 population #74 Lesotho: 24.72 births/1,000 population #75 Philippines: 24.48 births/1,000 population #76 Nauru: 24.47 births/1,000 population #77 Cape Verde: 24.4 births/1,000 population #78 Micronesia, Federated States of: 24.14 births/1,000 population #79 Nicaragua: 24.12 births/1,000 population #80 Tonga: 23.67 births/1,000 population #81 Namibia: 23.52 births/1,000 population #82 Botswana: 23.17 births/1,000 population #83 Kyrgyzstan: 23.08 births/1,000 population #84 Dominican Republic: 22.91 births/1,000 population #85 Bolivia: 22.82 births/1,000 population #86 India: 22.69 births/1,000 population #87 Malaysia: 22.65 births/1,000 population #88 Egypt: 22.53 births/1,000 population #89 Tuvalu: 22.43 births/1,000 population #90 Fiji: 22.37 births/1,000 population #91 Vanuatu: 22.35 births/1,000 population #92 Kuwait: 21.95 births/1,000 population #93 Ecuador: 21.91 births/1,000 population #94 Grenada: 21.87 births/1,000 population #95 American Samoa: 21.83 births/1,000 population #96 Morocco: 21.64 births/1,000 population #97 Turks and Caicos Islands: 21.48 births/1,000 population #98 Panama: 21.45 births/1,000 population #99 Venezuela: 21.22 births/1,000 population #100 Mongolia: 21.07 births/1,000 population #101 Cook Islands: 21 births/1,000 population #102 Jordan: 20.69 births/1,000 population #103 Jamaica: 20.44 births/1,000 population #104 Mexico: 20.36 births/1,000 population #105 Colombia: 20.16 births/1,000 population #106 Peru: 20.09 births/1,000 population #107 Indonesia: 19.65 births/1,000 population #108 Saint Lucia: 19.28 births/1,000 population #109 Northern Mariana Islands: 19.27 births/1,000 population #110 Guam: 18.56 births/1,000 population #111 Brunei: 18.56 births/1,000 population #112 Guyana: 18.09 births/1,000 population #113 Lebanon: 18.08 births/1,000 population #114 Costa Rica: 18.02 births/1,000 population #115 South Africa: 17.94 births/1,000 population #116 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 17.89 births/1,000 population #117 New Caledonia: 17.75 births/1,000 population #118 Israel: 17.71 births/1,000 population #119 Palau: 17.7 births/1,000 population #120 Bahrain: 17.53 births/1,000 population #121 Montserrat: 17.51 births/1,000 population #122 Burma: 17.48 births/1,000 population #123 Azerbaijan: 17.47 births/1,000 population #124 Suriname: 17.31 births/1,000 population #125 Bahamas, The: 17.3 births/1,000 population #126 Algeria: 17.11 births/1,000 population #127 Sri Lanka: 17 births/1,000 population #128 Vietnam: 16.63 births/1,000 population #129 Antigua and Barbuda: 16.62 births/1,000 population #130 Iran: 16.57 births/1,000 population #131 Argentina: 16.53 births/1,000 population #132 French Polynesia: 16.41 births/1,000 population #133 Turkey: 16.4 births/1,000 population #134 Brazil: 16.3 births/1,000 population #135 Kazakhstan: 16.23 births/1,000 population #136 United Arab Emirates: 16.09 births/1,000 population #137 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: 16.02 births/1,000 population #138 Greenland: 16.01 births/1,000 population #139 Seychelles: 15.83 births/1,000 population #140 Dominica: 15.75 births/1,000 population #141 Qatar: 15.56 births/1,000 population #142 Tunisia: 15.54 births/1,000 population #143 Mauritius: 15.26 births/1,000 population #144 Albania: 15.16 births/1,000 population #145 Korea, North: 15.06 births/1,000 population #146 Chile: 15.03 births/1,000 population #147 British Virgin Islands: 14.82 births/1,000 population #148 Netherlands Antilles: 14.56 births/1,000 population #149 Uruguay: 14.41 births/1,000 population #150 Ireland: 14.4 births/1,000 population #151 United States: 14.16 births/1,000 population #152 Faroe Islands: 14.12 births/1,000 population #153 Anguilla: 13.97 births/1,000 population #154 Thailand: 13.73 births/1,000 population #155 Virgin Islands: 13.68 births/1,000 population #156 New Zealand: 13.61 births/1,000 population #157 Iceland: 13.57 births/1,000 population #158 China: 13.45 births/1,000 population #159 Saint Pierre and Miquelon: 13.08 births/1,000 population #160 Trinidad and Tobago: 13.07 births/1,000 population #161 France: 12.91 births/1,000 population #162 Aruba: 12.83 births/1,000 population #163 Puerto Rico: 12.79 births/1,000 population #164 Barbados: 12.61 births/1,000 population #165 Cayman Islands: 12.6 births/1,000 population #166 Cyprus: 12.56 births/1,000 population #167 Armenia: 12.34 births/1,000 population #168 Macedonia, Republic of: 12.02 births/1,000 population #169 Australia: 12.02 births/1,000 population #170 Saint Helena: 11.93 births/1,000 population #171 Luxembourg: 11.84 births/1,000 population #172 Cuba: 11.44 births/1,000 population #173 Norway: 11.27 births/1,000 population #174 Bermuda: 11.26 births/1,000 population #175 Man, Isle of: 10.96 births/1,000 population #176 Russia: 10.92 births/1,000 population #177 Denmark: 10.91 births/1,000 population #178 Moldova: 10.88 births/1,000 population #179 Canada: 10.75 births/1,000 population #180 Netherlands: 10.7 births/1,000 population #181 Gibraltar: 10.69 births/1,000 population #182 Romania: 10.67 births/1,000 population #183 United Kingdom: 10.67 births/1,000 population #184 Slovakia: 10.65 births/1,000 population #185 Portugal: 10.59 births/1,000 population #186 Georgia: 10.54 births/1,000 population #187 Finland: 10.42 births/1,000 population #188 Belgium: 10.29 births/1,000 population #189 Malta: 10.28 births/1,000 population #190 Sweden: 10.2 births/1,000 population #191 Estonia: 10.17 births/1,000 population #192 Liechtenstein: 10.02 births/1,000 population #193 Spain: 9.98 births/1,000 population #194 Poland: 9.94 births/1,000 population #195 Korea, South: 9.93 births/1,000 population #196 San Marino: 9.89 births/1,000 population #197 Hungary: 9.66 births/1,000 population #198 Switzerland: 9.66 births/1,000 population #199 Croatia: 9.63 births/1,000 population #200 Bulgaria: 9.62 births/1,000 population #201 Greece: 9.62 births/1,000 population #202 Belarus: 9.5 births/1,000 population #203 Ukraine: 9.45 births/1,000 population #204 Latvia: 9.43 births/1,000 population #205 Singapore: 9.17 births/1,000 population #206 Monaco: 9.12 births/1,000 population #207 Jersey: 9.02 births/1,000 population #208 Slovenia: 9 births/1,000 population #209 Taiwan: 8.97 births/1,000 population #210 Czech Republic: 8.96 births/1,000 population #211 Lithuania: 8.87 births/1,000 population #212 Bosnia and Herzegovina: 8.8 births/1,000 population #213 Austria: 8.69 births/1,000 population #214 Guernsey: 8.65 births/1,000 population #215 Macau: 8.57 births/1,000 population #216 Italy: 8.54 births/1,000 population #217 Andorra: 8.45 births/1,000 population #218 Germany: 8.2 births/1,000 population #219 Japan: 8.1 births/1,000 population #220 Hong Kong: 7.34 births/1,000 population Weighted average: 22.0 births/1,000 population |
Additionally, here's the death rate by nation chart, just to be fair.
So therefore it would seem that the war on terror is also a war for the environment, no? I really don't see what the fuck Al Gore and co are whining about.
/dripping sarcasm
knowing that your children will survive their childhood is the best form of contraception
If global warming continues, does this mean I might get a couple more weeks use of my pool?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Is it? I haven't seen the movie. Just playing devil's advocate, but the pushback you'd receive there is, "If I'm not causing it, what's the point of changing my behavior?" I'm sure you can make a fine argument, I'm just pointing out the likely pushback to that concession. |
| quote: |
Is it? That's a very broad brush stroke. Most developed countries' populations aren't increasing that fast. In fact, Mark Steyn makes a very compelling argument that many developed nations have actually sunken below a critical growth rate of 2.1 children per household that will ultimately cause their populations to go into secular, and possibly terminal decline. Where the birthrate is extremely high, however, is in many hostile, muslim nations. I don't want to get into a geopolitical argument, but let's get the facts straight before we attack the subject with a blunt object. |
| quote: |
Perhaps, but species have been going into extinction since the dawn of time. Darwinism is alive and well, regardless of any exogenous influences. |
| quote: |
Well I'm glad you're more in the conservation camp and aren't advocating carbon trading as a viable solution! |
| quote: |
Is it ironic when athiests and agnostics hope in the name of God? Or are you off the hook since you didn't capitalize the G? |
My mom says she wishes she were raped by another man
| quote: |
| Originally posted by glass My mom says she wishes she were raped by another man |
you might be right, but she is my mom.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.