Destructive Power of the Media- the end of reason.

Zootalaws said:

The question was: "how high would sea levels be without this?"



The answer is: a few millimetres. If any discernible height change would occur at all.



I am not sure at all what your post is about - pointers, billions, hot air?

Click to expand...

The seas are rising and billions of tons of sea water has been used to displace oil so if this water was still above ground the seas would be higher.you say a few millimeters now go and work out how many billions have been pumped into the sea bed to fill the voids left by oil world wide and there is the answer,i dont know but i think it maybe a lot then again i maybe wrong but i will have no problem admitting it.

birdman said:

Im a scientist, and the science behind climate change is nice and all but it motivates me to do what exactly?



Nothing, because i dont feel guilty. Ok burning down forest is bad, and unbelievably stupid, so why not concentrate on prevention of stupid activities rather than a 0.5mm rise in sea level?



But i dont burn down forrests and pollute streams. Am I supposed to make a stand and stop wasting on the weekend when i go for a purposeless ride on my fossil fuel burning co2 generating two wheeled machine? Nope. Stop wasting precious electricity when i play loud electric blues with no audience other than a wife and children that think i suck? Nope.



Human reproduction is probably the biggest issue facing the planet. No one seems particularly interested in curbing reproduction. Even worse, the bible says thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. But damn she so fine I still covet her. Damn it, im damned to hell.

Click to expand...

This is the correct answer. End of story.

thedeal said:

The seas are rising and billions of tons of sea water has been used to displace oil so if this water was still above ground the seas would be higher.you say a few millimeters now go and work out how many billions have been pumped into the sea bed to fill the voids left by oil world wide and there is the answer,i dont know but i think it maybe a lot then again i maybe wrong but i will have no problem admitting it.

Click to expand...

I'm still not sure what the point is - as I said (twice) - I posted the results of what effect a billion tons of water would have on sea level.



I was interested in the maths.



I am not interested in an argument or on becoming embroiled in a discussion on global warming on a motorcycle forum.



I have given you the results of a billion tons of water, from that you can extrapolate it out to however many billions floats your boat.



My feelings and observations on global warming are largely irrelevant - I fly, a lot, I drive a 4L petrol vehicle that weighs a couple of tons, I ride ridiculously tuned motorcycles, I eat hot-house tomatoes, I buy Norwegian smoked salmon and French cheese when in Africa and Asia.



But I do like maths.

Zootalaws said:

I'm still not sure what the point is - as I said (twice) - I posted the results of what effect a billion tons of water would have on sea level.



I was interested in the maths.



I am not interested in an argument or on becoming embroiled in a discussion on global warming on a motorcycle forum.



I have given you the results of a billion tons of water, from that you can extrapolate it out to however many billions floats your boat.



My feelings and observations on global warming are largely irrelevant - I fly, a lot, I drive a 4L petrol vehicle that weighs a couple of tons, I ride ridiculously tuned motorcycles, I eat hot-house tomatoes, I buy Norwegian smoked salmon and French cheese when in Africa and Asia.



But I do like maths.

Click to expand...

You picked up on my post, it was you who sugested it was hot air,if you didnt want to get into a disscussion why pick up on it?if you dont want an argument why pick up on it twice?i dont care what you eat and i dont care what your views are but i have worked you out so id rather not communicate with you anymore thanks.

I didn't pick up on anything - you posed a direct question, I answered it.



As to having worked me out, I sincerely doubt that, seeing your propensity and desire to remain ignorant.

And that just backed it up. your far to easy.

your you're

to too

bluegreen said:

This is the correct answer. End of story.

Click to expand...

If it were only that simple. Over half the countries on this planet have seen an alarming drop in fertility rate, led by Europe and parts of Asia. Their rates are waaaay below numbers to even sustain the culture, much less over populate. In Russia, they are offering cash incentives for women to have babies.. This chart shows what countries in Europe have fallen dangerously behind in child production. Keep in mind, it takes 2.1 children per women to sustain existence13839:Fertility rate.jpg]

povol said:

If it were only that simple. Over half the countries on this planet have seen an alarming drop in fertility rate, led by Europe and parts of Asia. Their rates are waaaay below numbers to even sustain the culture, much less over populate. In Russia, they are offering cash incentives for women to have babies.. This chart shows what countries in Europe have fallen dangerously behind in child production. Keep in mind, it takes 2.1 children per women to sustain existence

Click to expand...

It's the rise of internet ...., not global warming, that's causing the problem. If you cross-check with the increased mass of right arms, you'll see it's true! Some of those little Asian guys look like tennis players!



That and the price of wide-screen computer monitors and laptops

dup...

povol said:

If it were only that simple. Over half the countries on this planet have seen an alarming drop in fertility rate, led by Europe and parts of Asia. Their rates are waaaay below numbers to even sustain the culture, much less over populate. In Russia, they are offering cash incentives for women to have babies.. This chart shows what countries in Europe have fallen dangerously behind in child production. Keep in mind, it takes 2.1 children per women to sustain existence13839:Fertility rate.jpg]

Click to expand...

Whoah there, that's rather overdramatic. First off, most developed countries offer cash incentives for women to have babies in the form of child benefit packages. These incentives are not aimed at increasing birthrates but child welfare. Increased brithrates are an unintented consequence.



Second, although birth-rates have been declining, immigration will keep populations growing for the next decades. In the long run, population growth will be stopped and reversed in most European countries given current trajectories, but when and to what extend is not is as clear cut as you may think. Mostly, the decline in birthrates in fact seems to be bottoming out. Moreover, many would argue that lower birthrates are a positive byproduct of modernization for a number of reasons. That, however is a normative debate.



Now, I do not understand at all why you would say something like 'waaaay below number to sustain culture'. What do you mean with 'sustain culture'? The only problem I see is the sutainability of certain welfare state provisions in the context of a changing demographic age structure. However, that demographic structure is changing because of a spike in birthrates known as the babyboom and increased lifespans due to technological advances. Increasing birthrates is not a solution but merely enlarges the problem and moves it further along in time.

Well how about so good old fashioned genocide then?

Goatboy said:

Well how about so good old fashioned genocide then?

Click to expand...

Now there's a thought. I select Australia and Argentina.

That's not fair - you just started at the beginning of the list.



I think you should pull the names out of a hat.



Someone needs to pick Pakistan, Saudi and Nigeria, FFS!

Zootalaws said:

That's not fair - you just started at the beginning of the list.



I think you should pull the names out of a hat.



Someone needs to pick Pakistan, Saudi and Nigeria, FFS!

Click to expand...

Only fair to start in Alphabetical order and not as if either country are particularly productive. We can live without Opals and corned beef.

May I also propose Crucifixtion as the means, classical.

Goatboy said:

May I also propose Crucifixtion as the means, classical.

Click to expand...

Nice thought but i think we need a more efficient method due the the numbers and time frame. if we take too long they may start breeding during the extermination period.



I suggest rage virus infection. That way they actually kill each other plus we can sell tickets to our gun toting Texan friends.

Crucifixion - It's so Italian... and environmentally unfriendly - think of the trees. You can't use concrete - that's a green minefield! It will be unpopular with the Muslims - raking over old coals.



If we are going to do over significant numbers of otherwise useless proles, we may as well get some use out of them. If we use some sort of self-powered machine that produces something useful, you will have a lot more chance of getting it over.



Say a machine that renders down the fat, uses that in a diesel engine to run the thing and produces nice, sterile compost as a by-product.



I could get behind something like that - call it Behemoth 3000 or something, to get the kiddie vote. Put it on Big Brother to get impetus among the mentally deficient and you're laughing.

Although Crucifixtion is very visual, like hanging, the visual deterant can be very powerful. Throw a bit of religion in their & you can have the fundamentals killing each other, thus saving on wood & getting rid of the nutjobs at the same time. I am willing to consider cannibalism however.

stiefel said:

Whoah there, that's rather overdramatic. First off, most developed countries offer cash incentives for women to have babies in the form of child benefit packages. These incentives are not aimed at increasing birthrates but child welfare. Increased brithrates are an unintented consequence.



Second, although birth-rates have been declining, immigration will keep populations growing for the next decades. In the long run, population growth will be stopped and reversed in most European countries given current trajectories, but when and to what extend is not is as clear cut as you may think. Mostly, the decline in birthrates in fact seems to be bottoming out. Moreover, many would argue that lower birthrates are a positive byproduct of modernization for a number of reasons. That, however is a normative debate.



Now, I do not understand at all why you would say something like 'waaaay below number to sustain culture'. What do you mean with 'sustain culture'? The only problem I see is the sutainability of certain welfare state provisions in the context of a changing demographic age structure. However, that demographic structure is changing because of a spike in birthrates known as the babyboom and increased lifespans due to technological advances. Increasing birthrates is not a solution but merely enlarges the problem and moves it further along in time.

Click to expand...

Russia and Japan are offering cash money for increasing birthrates, period, end of.



Russian President Vladimir Putin offered women cash to have more babies on Wednesday as he tackled a decline in population that is leaving swathes of the country deserted and threatening to strangle economic growth.

In his annual address to the nation, Putin said each year Russia’s population fell by about 700,000 — or about the same as the population of San Francisco. He proposed new financial incentives to nudge up the birth rate.