N.Irish MP with balls

[Gorbachioo]

about 50, why ?

Just checking.

 

[Zede]

Just checking.

I could put you in touch with a global warming denying zionist hashish dealer I know in Palolem, good shit too.

https://www.palolem-beach.com/


ask for John ( name changed of course) at Cafe Cuba, on the east side of town

 

[Gorbachioo]

I could put you in touch with a global warming denying zionist hashish dealer I know in Palolem, good shit too.

https://www.palolem-beach.com/


ask for John ( name changed of course) at Cafe Cuba, on the east side of town

I'll try to remember that next time i feel like smoking hashish in palolem beach.

 

[Dantares]

Woopie, 1 degree effect on the global warming. We're gonna die out of this planet in a 1000 years instead of 990?!

Aaanyway, scientists thought the nuke would either 50% not work, and 50% cause a chain reaction that would destroy the universe, so trusting egg-heads without doubt is not a good idea

Back on topic for a moment. A change of just 1 degree is actually a rather significant change. Because of the fragile nature of interdependent species even a small change can have huge, drastic effects on the environment that sustains them. As a most obvious example, that 1 degree change (if it is indeed 1 degree) would cause the polar ice caps to begin melting, along with other glacial areas (which many scientists say is indeed happening), threatening arctic creatures such as the penguin and polar bear.

When it comes to us though it would probably be quite different. It would make some lands less productive in terms of food yields, the potential for more fires, higher sea levels meaning less land to live on. Will we see them in our lifetime? Probably the onset of it, but it is the next generation that would most likely have a bigger problem with it than we do. The two question is indeed, are we (humans) the biggest factor/the cause of the climate changing, or is it one of those natural cycles? The answer is probably a bit of both. It's probably one of those times where the temperature naturally raises, but we are probably speeding that cycle up with burning of fossil fuels, farming of cows/sheep/pigs and the likes.

As for some scientists saying that it is not happening, well that is part of what science is about. It changes over time and gets better (some times taking steps back as well). it is dynamic, ever changing and debate is the corner stone of good science. It's not about proving some thing is right ot some thing is wrong, it's about trying to find an explanation that ties in the evidence of what is happening around us. In 10 years time evidence may present itself that mankind has had little to no effect on the changing of the climate, but until then it is good to err on the safe side and try to cut down the production of carbon dioxide and methane (which to be frank is a more significant problem to global warming than carbon dioxide) to try to minimise any potential threat, which is what it is at the moment.

 

[old.Tohtori]

What we should concentrate is on creating a fix on the possible problems that will come.

So if the caps melt, create freakin' floating cities or something. Etc.

We can't stop global warming(if it's our fault) without setting ourselves back(kill fuel burn for example) because these "energy saving" crap fests don't achieve anything.

The problem with humanity is that "every life is precious", when, this might sound harsh, there are parts of the world where people shouldn't survive at all.

The ENVIROMENT handles these things usually, but people fight back.

If we want to survive as a species, we can't save us all. Fact.

 

[Gorbachioo]

What we should concentrate is on creating a fix on the possible problems that will come.

So if the caps melt, create freakin' floating cities or something. Etc.

We can't stop global warming(if it's our fault) without setting ourselves back(kill fuel burn for example) because these "energy saving" crap fests don't achieve anything.

The problem with humanity is that "every life is precious", when, this might sound harsh, there are parts of the world where people shouldn't survive at all.

The ENVIROMENT handles these things usually, but people fight back.

If we want to survive as a species, we can't save us all. Fact.

See this is why im not a big fan of democracy.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Dont' try to twist what i said into some "anti-democratic cleansing propaganda", it's not, i say keep on trucking and save what you can, f*ck the future etc.

I'd rather try and save us all then let people die by choice, but, it doesn't make it less of a fact.

 

[Dantares]

What we should concentrate is on creating a fix on the possible problems that will come.

So if the caps melt, create freakin' floating cities or something. Etc.

We can't stop global warming(if it's our fault) without setting ourselves back(kill fuel burn for example) because these "energy saving" crap fests don't achieve anything.

The problem with humanity is that "every life is precious", when, this might sound harsh, there are parts of the world where people shouldn't survive at all.

The ENVIROMENT handles these things usually, but people fight back.

If we want to survive as a species, we can't save us all. Fact.

And why exactly would reducing our dependency on fossil fuels set us back? They are only a finite resource anyway, and sooner or later they will run out, so newer and re-usable sources of gaining our energy have to be found to replace them. Working our way around a problem is what has caused a lot of advancements in mankind's history. It forces us to look in new directions, create new ideas, it advances us. For example, two potential solutions are the hydrogen fuel cell and nuclear fusion and both are a lot safer than any kind of fossil fuel. The hydrogen fuel cell is perhaps more promising at the moment than nuclear fusion. By combining two atoms of hydrogen with one of oxygen it produces a small spark of electricity, and what is the emission from said reaction? Water.

Alternative sources of energy NEED to be found or we're going backwards anyway.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Missed the point i see.

Finding a solution like alternate fuel is what i was talking about. But killing fuel burn now would set us back. Cars, planes etc. Not to mention that the greenpipers who say "energy saving lightbulb saves the world" are full of crap. It changes nothing in the large scale.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Missed the point i see.

Finding a solution like alternate fuel is what i was talking about. But killing fuel burn now would set us back. Cars, planes etc. Not to mention that the greenpipers who say "energy saving lightbulb saves the world" are full of crap. It changes nothing in the large scale.

And why the hell would that set us back? It will set a few oil companies and countries back but thats it.

Using energy saving lightbulbs wont save us but they are a part of the solution. There is no one solution that will save everything.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And why the hell would that set us back? It will set a few oil companies and countries back but thats it.

You're asking "why removing fuel now would set us back"?

Seriously?

No airplanes, no cars, no trucks moving stuff, no boats moving stuff, no food in shops and so on.

Think about it.

And saving on energy is pointless except for your personal wallet. We're still gonna fill lands with trash, use cars, trucks, boats, etc etc.

If you want to save the "world", why not stop using a TV, or a computer, or heating and save 10 peoples lightbulbs.

You own't, because you want to save the world, but not at own cost.

 

[Gorbachioo]

You're asking "why removing fuel now would set us back"?

Seriously?

No airplanes, no cars, no trucks moving stuff, no boats moving stuff, no food in shops and so on.

Think about it.

And saving on energy is pointless except for your personal wallet. We're still gonna fill lands with trash, use cars, trucks, boats, etc etc.

If you want to save the "world", why not stop using a TV, or a computer, or heating and save 10 peoples lightbulbs.

You own't, because you want to save the world, but not at own cost.

The idea was that alternative ways to run those cars and airplanes would be developed.

 

[Dantares]

Missed the point i see.

Finding a solution like alternate fuel is what i was talking about. But killing fuel burn now would set us back. Cars, planes etc. Not to mention that the greenpipers who say "energy saving lightbulb saves the world" are full of crap. It changes nothing in the large scale.

Okay, maybe in the long run it won't make a difference, but in the short term it just might make a difference by reducing the release of carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere. In the next 100 years or so the temperature could raise as much as 6 degrees (unlikely, but possible) and that is an immense change in such a short span of time. We may or may not be making the problem worse, but if there's a way to reduce the energy we use and cut down the carbon usage then it's a good thing. Fuel for cars can be replaced right now by bioethanol fuels (or by mixing it with conventional petrol). Reducing our electrical usage could help too. It's the only habitable planet we have, and if we are causing a problem then there are some things we can do to reduce said problems here and now for us and every other living creature we share this amazing place with.

 

[Xandax]

What you fail to understand is, a lot of the people posting on this thread were once arrogant 16 year olds thinking they had it all sussed. Your no different.

Yeah - and now they are just arrogant older people thinking they have it all sussed.
Sheez - half the people in here remind me of religious fanatics dismissing science they don't like cause it doesn't fit their view.

Perhaps "we" have nothing to do with global warming - I'm not a scientist, but I trust them way more then some random spouting people and right wing nutjub politicians - but for once in history we can do something about our position and way of life - we have the ability to change situations.

The entire situation can pretty much be summed up as a "prisoners dilemma":

If the science is false and we do nothing, it'll not matter cause there was no problem.
If the science is false and we do something, we'll improve our global situation by making technological advances.
If the science is true and we do something, we might actually make a difference and prevent catastrophy.
If the science is true and we do nothing, bam - we loose.

Out of the 4 prospect, logically, the only sane choices is to do something. Gamble on it being nothing? Talk about selfishness.

No you can claim you know it all - but I trust those who do the scientific work much more then some people posting they know it all on a message board for computer games.
Somehow the target demographic of said board doesn't strike me nearly credible enough compared to scientists.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Okay, maybe in the long run it won't make a difference, but in the short term it just might make a difference by reducing the release of carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere. In the next 100 years or so the temperature could raise as much as 6 degrees (unlikely, but possible) and that is an immense change in such a short span of time. We may or may not be making the problem worse, but if there's a way to reduce the energy we use and cut down the carbon usage then it's a good thing. Fuel for cars can be replaced right now by bioethanol fuels (or by mixing it with conventional petrol). Reducing our electrical usage could help too. It's the only habitable planet we have, and if we are causing a problem then there are some things we can do to reduce said problems here and now for us and every other living creature we share this amazing place with.

Ofcourse, Gorb just tries to argue the same point over and over, and i did say that we need a solution before we can cut down the carbon use.

If we simply cut it down, with no viable alternative that can hold the sands of time, we cause more problems.

Not to mention, maybe the planet is SUPPOSED to warm up. It's done so before and it'll start cooling down after 2010 again, even if politicians are going to spin it off as "our doing".

Science and "upgrades in tech" is not always a good thing.

 

[Bugz]

Hi Boserup, is it true you've pwnt Malthus continiously over the last god knows how long?

Yes Bugz, it is.

Thanks Boserup.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Hi Boserup, is it true you've pwnt Malthus continiously over the last god knows how long?

Yes Bugz, it is.

Thanks Boserup.

Ester Böserup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any logical person will understand that we can stretch the limits to growth only for so long. In todays global economy malthus can only be right once. Without this magical invention we would have seen a ton of malthusian catastrophes already. Shes basically claiming that we can just grow forever and we'll always come up with a way to produce more. How could anyone with a brain actually believe that?

You know what your problem is bugz? Too much reading, too little thinking. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand how ridiculous boserups claims are.

 

[Ormorof]

the mathematical reasons why theres a limit to growth: The Mathematics that Contemporary Economics Ignores | Use Celsias.com - reduce global Celsius

quite a few videos there but they well worth a watch/listen

 

[Ormorof]

bah at editing times

its quite long winded but he rips the idea of % growth as a useful measure, and concludes that eventually we will have to have 0% growth or even -% growth due to the exponential nature of percentages, for example 7% annual growth sounds wonderful but that would mean whatever you had initially would be double as large within 10 years and if you consider that the planet is a finite size we cant continue to expand indefinitely

 

[Bugz]

You know what my problem is? I let history influence my thinking. Why do I let history influence my thinking? Because often, it's a damn sight more reliable than doomsaying.

Yes, Malthus is likely to be right once. Is that your arguement? What makes you think that won't happen in around 30,000 years?

 

[kiliarien]

Ester Böserup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any logical person will understand that we can stretch the limits to growth only for so long. In todays global economy malthus can only be right once. Without this magical invention we would have seen a ton of malthusian catastrophes already. Shes basically claiming that we can just grow forever and we'll always come up with a way to produce more. How could anyone with a brain actually believe that?

You know what your problem is bugz? Too much reading, too little thinking. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand how ridiculous boserups claims are.

Agreed. Her "necessity is the mother of invention" is a great ideal but it doesn't stand true. There ARE finite limits of resources - Boserup does avoid the issue of increased consumerism and the inevitable link to cultures of waste. Mauritius works as an example of her theory but it fails to take into account levels of development:

List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mauritius sits firmly in the Newly Industrialised (NIC) bracket of development being 74th, whereas essentially we are speculating here as to whether sustainable development can be established in the More Economically Developed countries, of which most NICs are striving to acheive. Malthus's theory was of course flawed because he could not use a crystal ball to see how technology and agricultural improvement would exponentially increase food supply - that said, his theory does contain undertones of truth in such areas as increased desertification of marginal agricultural land. The only case study that has totally proven Malthus's theory is that of Easter Island which ofc is a unique example that happened before his theory.

There are workable models that combine the meritable facets of both Boserup & Malthus but they are by no means simple - just look at the Club of Rome's attempts for example:

The Limits to Growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Awwww, this has been far too grown up for this forum......look at the tits on this......(would have done this as a spoiler if I knew how)



(Oldie but a goodie!)

 

[Sar]

Sammy Wilson is an arsehole tbh.

He's in charge of Road Tax over here, and he, erm, "forgot" to tax his car for months and was caught on.

Now he's denying climate change while sitting in the Environment Minister's chair.

Arsewipe.

Was bad enough when he was Belfast Mayor, but now he's an MLA. Jeeezus.

 

[Sar]

kil:

Spoiler

Quote me text to see how it's done

 

[Gorbachioo]

You know what my problem is? I let history influence my thinking. Why do I let history influence my thinking? Because often, it's a damn sight more reliable than doomsaying.

Yes, Malthus is likely to be right once. Is that your arguement? What makes you think that won't happen in around 30,000 years?

That is exactly your problem - history wont help in a situation that has never happened before. Every time something like this has happened before it has either been solved with imports or new technology. When it happens on a global scale there will be no one left to export more food to us which means that our only chance is technology. But the thing about technology is that it wont give us more arable land - it'll only improve the efficiency that we use it with. And efficiency can only be a 100%

And how do i know that we're near the limits now instead of 30 000 years? I dont, but it sure looks like it. Current food prices, future projections concerning food demand, population growth, desertification, water depletion, peak oil, depletion of fossil fuels. All of these things are big problems on their own. What happens when we have to deal with all of them at once?

 

[Zede]

Yeah - and now they are just arrogant older people thinking they have it all sussed.
Sheez - half the people in here remind me of religious fanatics dismissing science they don't like cause it doesn't fit their view.

Perhaps "we" have nothing to do with global warming - I'm not a scientist, but I trust them way more then some random spouting people and right wing nutjub politicians - but for once in history we can do something about our position and way of life - we have the ability to change situations.

The entire situation can pretty much be summed up as a "prisoners dilemma":

If the science is false and we do nothing, it'll not matter cause there was no problem.
If the science is false and we do something, we'll improve our global situation by making technological advances.
If the science is true and we do something, we might actually make a difference and prevent catastrophy.
If the science is true and we do nothing, bam - we loose.

Out of the 4 prospect, logically, the only sane choices is to do something. Gamble on it being nothing? Talk about selfishness.

No you can claim you know it all - but I trust those who do the scientific work much more then some people posting they know it all on a message board for computer games.
Somehow the target demographic of said board doesn't strike me nearly credible enough compared to scientists.

take your self righteous bullshit and basically, FUCK OFF. If this board is not good enough for you, again - FUCK OFF.

 

[Zede]

Sammy Wilson is an arsehole tbh.

He's in charge of Road Tax over here, and he, erm, "forgot" to tax his car for months and was caught on.

Now he's denying climate change while sitting in the Environment Minister's chair.

Arsewipe.

Was bad enough when he was Belfast Mayor, but now he's an MLA. Jeeezus.

Glad he annoys you tbh, i hope he annoys a lot more sheeple like yourself

 

[Sar]

Glad he annoys you tbh, i hope he annoys a lot more sheeple like yourself

Erm, why exactly?

 

[Gorbachioo]

Erm, why exactly?

Because zede is an asshole?

 

[Zede]

Erm, why exactly?

Nobody is denying climate change, but you knew that right ?

He is offering a different opnion, and i find it funny people simply cannot accept he well, may have a point.

 

[Zede]

Because zede is an asshole?

As a matter of interest child, what country are you from ?