MensTennisForums.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts. Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
09-19-2013 06:44 PM
Allez
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

Clowns still pushing the global warming BS. Even Al Gore has dropped it and has gone for "Climate Change" once it became clear the world is headed for global cooling. No doubt that is man made as well
09-19-2013 03:18 AM
buddyholly
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

Sea levels will rise from melting of Greenland and South Pole ice, the Arctic Sea ice does not matter.
09-19-2013 02:44 AM
Mr. Oracle
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

I have a serious question,
What if the polar icecaps melt,
What will happen?
And should Sweet Cleopatra be worried?
09-18-2013 10:49 PM
buddyholly
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fujee View Post
It is obviously going to exponentially increase. Scepticism in this field of research is akin to believing Lance Armstrong is innocent.
How does an apparent flatline become exponential?
09-18-2013 10:47 PM
buddyholly
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

New IPCC report is coming out with a new chart showing there has been no warming for the last 22 years. Some German scientists have said that if there is not a surge in warming over the next 5 years, then all the models used by the UN will have to be scrapped.

Al Gore must be getting desperate. It will be interesting to hear him accuse the deniers of believing useless UN reports.
01-10-2013 12:26 AM
vucina
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

I'm not a biologist, but isn't CO2 what plants need to live and produce oxygen?
The problems are overexploitation of forests and pollutants that can't be recycled by natural processes.
01-09-2013 11:14 PM
buddyholly
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fujee View Post
It is obviously going to exponentially increase. Scepticism in this field of research is akin to believing Lance Armstrong is innocent.
Fiddlesticks! Or, more appropriately, "Hockey Sticks."

Obvious to whom? One thing the warmers hate is sceptics questioning their motives. Thus the faking of data.
The British Met office says it is not even increasing now and you no doubt cover your ears and shout "Heretics! Heretics!"

Believing Lance armstrong is innocent of doping is akin to believing Al Gore is innocent of taking the public for a ride at a huge cost to the public and a billion dollar windfall for big Al. He is right down there with any other snakeoil salesman. Laughing all the way to the bank and declaring the debate is over!
01-09-2013 03:03 PM
Fujee
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

It is obviously going to exponentially increase. Scepticism in this field of research is akin to believing Lance Armstrong is innocent.
01-09-2013 12:18 PM
buddyholly
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

The British Met Office says that global warming has stalled and world temps. will not rise over the next five years. The Office is now rersearching the potential causes of the slowdown - including ''natural variation.''

Keep calm and carry on.
01-06-2013 05:03 AM
buddyholly
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

People would say it is their right to have as many children as they wish.

So I say it is my right to pollute as much as I want.

These are equally bad for the planet. But there is no sign of anyone wanting to limit the population. Without that it is hypocritical to advocate reducing carbon emissions.
01-06-2013 03:53 AM
Mjau!
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

Maybe give LENR some proper funding and see if it leads anywhere?

17th International Conference on "Cold Fusion" - Presentations
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/confere...7-Papers.shtml

Mitsubishi Reports Toyota Replication
http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/...a-replication/

Yasuhiro Iwamura, of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries at American Nuclear Society Meeting, Nov. 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VefCEaLAkRw

Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/03/ove...tical-and.html

Eugene Mallove Interview - 1998
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avpoIAKvYmU

2009 - University of Missouri LENR Seminar - Dr. Robert Duncan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLEMl5WLw3o

2009 - University of Missouri LENR Seminar - SPAWAR/JWK Group
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LV8rM7vn0

2009 - University of Missouri LENR Seminar - Dr. Edmund Storms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMpLX8478Y8

2009 - University of Missouri LENR Seminar - Dr. Michael McKubre
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJI1ZNbWICY

2012 - Steven B. Krivit Presentation at American Nuclear Society Meeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR-5Zw_Hds8

NASA presentations
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/governm...R-Workshop.pdf
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/governm...R-Workshop.pdf
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/governm...R-Workshop.pdf

Brian Ahern getting 8W for over four days of operation in a Low Energy Nuclear Process
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/bri...ts-in-low.html
01-06-2013 02:52 AM
allpro
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."
-The First Global Revolution, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome (Illuminati think-tank) by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, 1991, p. 75.


“We’re no better than bacteria. Instead of being cursed with our fertility, I would bless us with infertility.”
-Eric Pianka, Author of Evolutionary Ecology and advocate for using airborn Ebola to cull 90% of the population. (AIDS is "not an efficient killer"..."it's too slow")


Global Enviro-Eugenic Consensus Fixes 500 Million As “Optimum Population Size”

Jurriaan Maessen
October 22, 2012
http://explosivereports.com/2012/10/...pulation-size/

The Georgia Guidestones - a collection of standing stones mimicking ancient Celtic stone circles in Britain and France, remind us that this particular monument, crafted and donated by “a small group of Americans who seek the Age of Reason” is a commemoration of ancient sacrifices performed by the Druid priest-class satisfying their deity’s unquenchable blood thirst. One of the inscriptions carved into the Guidestones proposes an elite class will “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature”, after which is proposed: “Guide reproduction wisely improving fitness and diversity.”



500 million people. This exact number is mentioned by demographers and environmentalists all across the globe as the ideal figure below which or at which the human population should be kept. In comparison to the current global population, 8 billion, the envisioned total of 500 million would constitute a reduction of no less than 94 percent from today’s total. The Club of Rome in their “Goals for mankind” proposes “the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”

CNN founder Ted Turner went even further in his ideal of optimum population: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First, may be the ultimate death loving sociopath when he states: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

An article published in the January 19 1949 Evening Independent titled Posterity Begins At Home, the author Hal Boyle writes about a man and woman (George and Grace) who attended a college class in “world population- its cause and cure”, and writes down what the man and woman are discussing on the way home:

“Grace had thought it possible for the world to support adequately a population of 750,000,000. Gently George showed her she was wrong. The right figure, he said, was 500,000,000. “At that population level”, he said, : “everybody in the world could have plenty of bread and milk and steak- all the good things of the earth. And there would be no reason for wars, for everyone would have enough. “We must find some way- gradually, of course- to cut the world population down to a sensible 500,000,000.”

This humorous piece written in a time less dumbed-down, the author clearly criticizes the upcoming Rockefeller-inspired eugenics-movement in the U.S., ending his tale with George and Grace happily having six children.

The obsession with specific boundaries of human expansion in relation to population numbers continues to this day. In a June 2012 discussion paper titled One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity put out by the United Nations Environmental Programme this mystical numerology is reaffirmed as one of the elite’s envisioned upper ceilings above which no human being will be allowed:
“looking at 94 different estimates of the upper bounds of Earth’s population found estimates ranging from a low of 500 000 000 to a high of 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.”

Although the study hastens to explain that “the outcome of attempts to define a static ceiling for sustainable human population seems destined to uncertainty”, the writers say: “models that capture the key dynamics of the Earth system can serve as a map for choices that will impact our collective future (however many of us there ultimately are).”

In other words: by modeling this or that possible outcome of the so-called “human footprint”, the desired number will follow as a result. We will have to hope their modeling computer are better attuned than those used by the IPCC, calculating likely deluge engulfing the planet as a result of global warming- or sudden freeze as a result of global cooling, depending on which enviro-eugenicist you ask. A 2010 document titled Will Limited Land, Water, and Energy Control Human Population Numbers in the Future by scientists from Cornell University a culling to 2 billion from current numbers is being proposed unhesitatingly. The document first paints doom and gloom for mankind if not for a quick and globally enforced culling policy:

“a population policy ensuring that each couple produces an average of only one child would be necessary to achieve the goal of reducing world population from the current 6.8 billion to an optimal population of approximately 2 billion in slightly more than 100 years.”

Also:

“Although a rapid reduction in population numbers to 2 billion humans could cause social, economic, and political problems, continued rapid growth will result in a dire situation with major starvation and disease outbreaks.”

Notice the “could” and “will” placed cautiously within this one sentence. Reducing human numbers could cause some problems, further growth will be catastrophic – through which the authors echo the classic Neo-Malthusian threat: reduce human numbers or else…”. At the end the authors state: “We must avoid allowing human population to continue to increase beyond the limit of the Earth’s natural resources, which will inevitably lead to increased disease, malnutrition, and violent conflicts over limited resources.” Similar warnings issued by Malthus in the 19th century and Paul Ehrlich in the 20th century of course turned out to be hogwash, although the last mentioned author maintains his stance to this day. This breed of enviro-eugenicists (to use a term coined by Aaron Dykes in 2007) drags behind it a lot of scrub-wood. An organization calling itself “the global community” is also transfixed on the number of 500,000,000:

“The Global Community proposes a tight global policy, benignly implemented, or it will be very nasty indeed. In practice, a human population of 10 to 12 billion would be too uncomfortably high and wold add a high strain on world resources. What kind of world population would be reasonable? What goal should we aim at? A population should be small enough to be sustainable indefinitely and still allow plenty of leeway for ourselves and other lifeforms. It should also be large enough to allow the formation of healthy civilizations. We propose a world population of 500 million.”

Again 500,000,000. What is it with this particular number which has makes these enviro-eugenicists froth at the mouth? According to the mystical table of numbers, 5 represents equilibrium, balance etc, which corresponds exactly to the writing on the Guidestone, reading: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

Balance. Order. These are words used by tyrants who believe that they are destined to rule mankind. According to “late scholar” Alan Roper in his 1913 essay Ancient Eugenics the chosen number (5) seems to have some mystical significance:

“(…) there is”, Roper writes, “the question of the numbers of the population. It is no definitely Eugenic conception that leads to the limitation of 5,040: there is a certain Malthusian element, and something of a prepossession with a mystical doctrine of numbers.”

Writing about the eugenicists’ obsession with fixed boundaries in regards to population numbers, Roper invokes Plato as one of the first to subscribe to “a mystic doctrine of numbers”:

“(…) he (Plato) would fix the number of the state at an unalterable 8,000. To attain this static equilibrium the guardians are to regulate the number of marriages.”

Roper also quotes William Bateson’s Biological Fact and Structure of Society that fixing an optimum population can only be done by measuring the “energy-income” of the earth, not spreading “a layer of human protoplasm of the greatest thickness over the earth”:

“It is recognized today that it should be the endeavour of social organization to secure the optimum number, and not the maximum number. To spread a layer of human protoplasm of the greatest thickness over the earth—the implied ambition of many publicists—in the light of natural knowledge is seen to be reckless folly.”

“But”, Roper continues in his pre-WWI essay, “there is a natural tendency which limits the numbers of the population to the energy-income of the earth. Among the intelligent classes of a civilized community it is effected by control of reproduction.”

We return for a moment to the second inscription in the Georgia Guidestones: “Guide reproduction wisely improving fitness and diversity.”

The entire eugenic concept of “optimum population” has been formulated way back in the 19th century- which in its turn was a follow-up of more ancient principles of infanticide. The global elite’s obsession with occult numerology continues to this day as they move the population chess pieces to and fro in the name of the environment.



“All of the insanities of the environmental movement become intelligible when one grasps the nature of the destructive motivation behind them. They are not uttered in the interest of man's life and well-being, but for the purpose of leading him to self-destruction”

-George Reisman
01-05-2013 08:05 PM
HKz
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garson007 View Post
I couldn't care less about climate change. How exactly does it impact me? Both warmer climate and more CO2 has shown to increase floral life. It's unlikely to ever affect the human species as a whole. Rather put some money in food technologies than wasting all our effort on less productive things.
My thoughts as well..

I live in Arizona, it will always be hot no matter what anyways

Either way, I have to admit I'm a big skeptic on the man-made global warming theory. Could it be true? Yes. But what evidence and correlations they have shown throughout the years, it has never made me a believer. What is fact, is that our planet has gone through several warming and cooling periods (we had a rather "recent" ice age too), so I'm not sure why the theory of the earth is merely still warming up since the last ice age isn't a very talked about one. I'm sure money and economies have a lot to do with it, as things like hybrid cars and other similar technology get much of their publicity and demand from making consumers think this way.
01-05-2013 05:57 PM
buddyholly
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Har-Tru View Post



Even if such effect were to be proven, in order for cosmic rays to account for the recent global warming on earth two other factors should be met: there should be a higher solar activity and a reduction of cosmic rays reaching the earth. None of this has happened in the past decades.
Interesting academic tiff between CERN and the Danes. And since the results give impetus to the Danish theory, it is no surprise that the director of CERN gave the order to present the results without interpretation.
01-05-2013 04:38 PM
Har-Tru
Re: Third World bears brunt of global warming impacts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddyholly View Post
A new study by scientists at CERN seems to prove that the sun is the main driver of climate change on earth. Sunspot activity has a critical effect on cosmic ray paths, diverting them away from the earth in active periods, leading to loss of cloud formation and subsequent heating of the earth by the cosmic rays that are unobstructed by clouds.

Carbon dioxide, man-made and otherwise, would seem to have a negligible effect. Naturally this news is not being headlined: the media, grant-hungry scientists and politicians have already invested a decade in convincing the public that more regulation of their lives and more money spent on the man-made global warming scare is critical to saving the earth. Even the scientists at CERN were apparently warned to present their results, but refrain from any interpretation that would influence the climate change debate.

What's that terrible noise I hear.................Oh, just Al Gore screaming BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT!!
Yes, Al, the debate may indeed soon be over.
That is not what the CERN paper said. The paper showed that there is a direct correlation between nucleation and cosmic rays, but the man behind the whole idea and lead scientist of this CLOUD experiment, Jasper Kirkby said himself:

Quote:
"[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step."
Even if such effect were to be proven, in order for cosmic rays to account for the recent global warming on earth two other factors should be met: there should be a higher solar activity and a reduction of cosmic rays reaching the earth. None of this has happened in the past decades.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome