Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

About That Global Warming...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

    That's an inadequate solution to a problem that actually exists. Rebuilding refineries (and the residential areas to support them) makes sense in a location that is more economical. Shipping costs on water (from canals to high seas) is relatively cheap, so much of Houston's refinery capacity can be distributed inland. The hypothesis is that levees built to protect inland (as well as higher altitude) will be much more effective and less expensive in the longer run. That means each area should be abandoned or chosen for protection from rising seas, based mainly on economics, not tradition. As population falls to a new plateau, that frees up resources (fe agriculture) inland, that can be set aside for urban or other use. If it is more economical over a 100 year span to locate inland, instead of building levees, that should be the strategy for spending public money. In short, some coastal areas will only be saved because it is economical for the entire state economy to do so over the long run, not because limited interests want to stay put at any cost (not borne by their finances).

    That same strategy should apply, without the strategic infrastructure complication of Houston refineries, in all other coastal areas. Levees have to prove their worth over the long term, and some have failed. Like much of the levee and other "improved" flood control measures in New Orleans. 12 years after the Katrina disaster, NO was still flooded by heavy rains. As heavier rains and rising sea levels become the new normal in some areas, it will be necessary to change where we settle, rather than just build higher levees (or bigger pumps) and stay put in every case.
    I generally agree that the decisions re what to do about flooding should be based mostly on economics. However, these decisions won't be easy, especially in some cases.

    Refineries are extremely expensive to build, and they are important to the country as a whole, not just to the companies that own them. Its easy to say let them go under water and be rebuilt somewhere else, but who wants to pay $8 a gallon for gas? Or, since we are talking about the future, maybe $30 a gallon.

    Who's going to make the decision to let NO disappear? Politicians tend to avoid making extremely unpopular decisions. DC is also sinking. A lot of people might like to see that go underwater but I doubt that will be allowed to happen.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • That has to be decided at the place and time. NO is different than Houston, which has refineries for the near future. In NO's case, it should be easier to sell than one might think. If a team of engineers, city planners and auditors determine that it will cost 300 billion to build bigger levees with infrastructure. Say there is still a 30% chance that a series of super storms will breach at least one zone within 30 years, so we'll need an "option B". Suppose "B" would cost 500 billion to relocate business and residential areas a few miles inland (and up in elevation), with a 5% chance of flooding or other significant storm damage, ever. I'll support my reps in US Congress if they vote for option B, even though it costs more in the short run, and I won't be around in the long run.

      That's because option B will pay dividends in the longer run, while the Big Levee project would arguably be too risky, causing more financial damage -as well as needless loss of human life. I think "B" would also be chosen by the majority of US citizens as well as NO residents if we could vote. Their house mortgage transfers to the new neighborhood, which is more secure. The old coastal areas -turned into parks or other attractions that cost very little even if reclaimed entirely by the sea; all of it a natural buffer that can help shield the remodeled city from major storms.

      Houston's refineries can be shut down, as more vehicles transition to electric, while those still needed are relocated upland starting with the older structures first. That can be justified in several ways. Militarily, the targets should be spread out and shielded from natural disasters. Logistically, additional costs are contained with an upgrade to that region's canal and pipeline system. Environmentally, older plant replacements pollute less while operating at greater efficiency. Finally, if people can abandon Houston neighborhoods that are at risk from super storms, they could live closer to work in another county that has a new refinery and spinoff business. No need to risk living below a levee structure, just so one can have a 90-minute commute to work.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        That has to be decided at the place and time. NO is different than Houston, which has refineries for the near future. In NO's case, it should be easier to sell than one might think. If a team of engineers, city planners and auditors determine that it will cost 300 billion to build bigger levees with infrastructure. Say there is still a 30% chance that a series of super storms will breach at least one zone within 30 years, so we'll need an "option B". Suppose "B" would cost 500 billion to relocate business and residential areas a few miles inland (and up in elevation), with a 5% chance of flooding or other significant storm damage, ever. I'll support my reps in US Congress if they vote for option B, even though it costs more in the short run, and I won't be around in the long run.

        That's because option B will pay dividends in the longer run, while the Big Levee project would arguably be too risky, causing more financial damage -as well as needless loss of human life. I think "B" would also be chosen by the majority of US citizens as well as NO residents if we could vote. Their house mortgage transfers to the new neighborhood, which is more secure. The old coastal areas -turned into parks or other attractions that cost very little even if reclaimed entirely by the sea; all of it a natural buffer that can help shield the remodeled city from major storms.

        Houston's refineries can be shut down, as more vehicles transition to electric, while those still needed are relocated upland starting with the older structures first. That can be justified in several ways. Militarily, the targets should be spread out and shielded from natural disasters. Logistically, additional costs are contained with an upgrade to that region's canal and pipeline system. Environmentally, older plant replacements pollute less while operating at greater efficiency. Finally, if people can abandon Houston neighborhoods that are at risk from super storms, they could live closer to work in another county that has a new refinery and spinoff business. No need to risk living below a levee structure, just so one can have a 90-minute commute to work.
        You may be right. Whether the decision makers of the future agree is another matter. We won't be around long enough to find out.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

          You may be right. Whether the decision makers of the future agree is another matter. We won't be around long enough to find out.
          Don't you think that's just a tiny bit selfish. I'm only going to be around for another twenty years so why should I care about what happens after I'm gone. How very republican.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Originally posted by redrover View Post

            Don't you think that's just a tiny bit selfish. I'm only going to be around for another twenty years so why should I care about what happens after I'm gone. How very republican.
            I didn't say I didn't care. I said I won't be around to see what decisions are made and how things turn out. My feeling is that when it comes to the future climate change will not be our major problem.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

              I didn't say I didn't care. I said I won't be around to see what decisions are made and how things turn out. My feeling is that when it comes to the future climate change will not be our major problem.
              To the extent climate change limits resources for all life on the planet, it will be the major problem. Here's one link:
              https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...xth-extinction

              Planets dominated by intelligent beings who invent their way out of disaster caused by overpopulation, after they wipe out most other species, is science fiction. Throughout the universe. I for one am optimistic, however. People are voluntarily reducing our numbers, which opens up reserves for other species to maintain their numbers. We adjust our economy to reduced consumption, with sporadic jumps in demand for major technological advances. Whole sections, from coastal areas to interior mountain chains and water sources, can be left mostly to other species as a result, with infrequent use by humans. We'll be fine, assuming we limit our mass murder (fe, nuclear war) before we enter into our planned reduction phase.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                To the extent climate change limits resources for all life on the planet, it will be the major problem. Here's one link:
                https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...xth-extinction

                Planets dominated by intelligent beings who invent their way out of disaster caused by overpopulation, after they wipe out most other species, is science fiction. Throughout the universe. I for one am optimistic, however. People are voluntarily reducing our numbers, which opens up reserves for other species to maintain their numbers. We adjust our economy to reduced consumption, with sporadic jumps in demand for major technological advances. Whole sections, from coastal areas to interior mountain chains and water sources, can be left mostly to other species as a result, with infrequent use by humans. We'll be fine, assuming we limit our mass murder (fe, nuclear war) before we enter into our planned reduction phase.
                There is no reason to believe that climate change is going to limit resources for life on the planet. Increased CO2 levels are causing a significant increase in plant growth.

                https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth

                As for doomsday books I have no interest in them. They have been around forever and have always turned out to be totally wrong. Good example, Paul Erlich and his Population Bomb that failed to explode.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                  There is no reason to believe that climate change is going to limit resources for life on the planet. Increased CO2 levels are causing a significant increase in plant growth.

                  https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth

                  As for doomsday books I have no interest in them. They have been around forever and have always turned out to be totally wrong. Good example, Paul Erlich and his Population Bomb that failed to explode.
                  Great for certain plants, not so great for other species, if other critical factors (besides increased CO2) make their existence unsustainable. Kolbert's writing on that theme, summarized here:
                  ...she examines the role of man-made climate change in causing what biologists call the sixth mass extinction — the current spasm of plant and animal loss that threatens to eliminate 20 to 50 percent of all living species on earth within this century.

                  Extinction is a relatively new idea in the scientific community. Well into the 18th century, people found it impossible to accept the idea that species had once lived on earth but had been subsequently lost. Scientists simply could not envision a planetary force powerful enough to wipe out forms of life that were common in prior ages.
                  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/b...h-kolbert.html

                  If there is currently a large portion of biologists who disagree with the hypothesis: "20 to 50 percent of all living species on earth", will be extinct by the end of this century, that should be easy to prove. A survey of 1 thousand or more peer-reviewed, published and practicing biologists around the world (fe), with 10% of them stating they believe there will be no mass extinction within 100 years. That's just 10% of practicing biologists in the private and public sector. Should be easy to refute this "6th extinction" stuff, using a 10% or better threshold, along with a review on what extinctions happen during each passing decade until the end of this century.

                  Which would be different than a singular claim by Paul Erlich, who didn't do a thorough job before making his claim. Pretty dumb on his part, pretending that humans have too little intelligence and will to regulate their own family size, despite gains in birth control technology that were obvious when he wrote his book. He also failed to properly analyze the history of food production, contrasted against population growth, at least one or two major food revolutions happening before Erlich was even born.

                  The biologists' hypothesis is that man is capable of causing this mass extinction, and is behaving in such a way as to cause 20-50% (mass) extinction within 100 years. The hypothesis mentions "man-caused" climate change as one of the causes, but it is certainly not the only factor pushed by human activity. Hunting and elimination ("development') of habitat for other species will also cause mass extinction. There are other factors in play, if humans only pause to think, before we act.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    Great for certain plants, not so great for other species, if other critical factors (besides increased CO2) make their existence unsustainable. Kolbert's writing on that theme, summarized here:

                    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/b...h-kolbert.html

                    If there is currently a large portion of biologists who disagree with the hypothesis: "20 to 50 percent of all living species on earth", will be extinct by the end of this century, that should be easy to prove. A survey of 1 thousand or more peer-reviewed, published and practicing biologists around the world (fe), with 10% of them stating they believe there will be no mass extinction within 100 years. That's just 10% of practicing biologists in the private and public sector. Should be easy to refute this "6th extinction" stuff, using a 10% or better threshold, along with a review on what extinctions happen during each passing decade until the end of this century.

                    Which would be different than a singular claim by Paul Erlich, who didn't do a thorough job before making his claim. Pretty dumb on his part, pretending that humans have too little intelligence and will to regulate their own family size, despite gains in birth control technology that were obvious when he wrote his book. He also failed to properly analyze the history of food production, contrasted against population growth, at least one or two major food revolutions happening before Erlich was even born.

                    The biologists' hypothesis is that man is capable of causing this mass extinction, and is behaving in such a way as to cause 20-50% (mass) extinction within 100 years. The hypothesis mentions "man-caused" climate change as one of the causes, but it is certainly not the only factor pushed by human activity. Hunting and elimination ("development') of habitat for other species will also cause mass extinction. There are other factors in play, if humans only pause to think, before we act.
                    From what I've read we could expect large areas suffering from famine and drought which would cause mass migrations with all the problems that would cause. We would be putting up Trump walls all over the world.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Today Doyle Rice had an article in USAtoday gentled Earth arks 400 consecutive month's of warmer than usual months. You have to Reagan's second term to find a cooler month. You would think even right wingers could see a trend there. Probably not.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        Great for certain plants, not so great for other species, if other critical factors (besides increased CO2) make their existence unsustainable. Kolbert's writing on that theme, summarized here:

                        https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/b...h-kolbert.html

                        If there is currently a large portion of biologists who disagree with the hypothesis: "20 to 50 percent of all living species on earth", will be extinct by the end of this century, that should be easy to prove. A survey of 1 thousand or more peer-reviewed, published and practicing biologists around the world (fe), with 10% of them stating they believe there will be no mass extinction within 100 years. That's just 10% of practicing biologists in the private and public sector. Should be easy to refute this "6th extinction" stuff, using a 10% or better threshold, along with a review on what extinctions happen during each passing decade until the end of this century.

                        Which would be different than a singular claim by Paul Erlich, who didn't do a thorough job before making his claim. Pretty dumb on his part, pretending that humans have too little intelligence and will to regulate their own family size, despite gains in birth control technology that were obvious when he wrote his book. He also failed to properly analyze the history of food production, contrasted against population growth, at least one or two major food revolutions happening before Erlich was even born.

                        The biologists' hypothesis is that man is capable of causing this mass extinction, and is behaving in such a way as to cause 20-50% (mass) extinction within 100 years. The hypothesis mentions "man-caused" climate change as one of the causes, but it is certainly not the only factor pushed by human activity. Hunting and elimination ("development') of habitat for other species will also cause mass extinction. There are other factors in play, if humans only pause to think, before we act.
                        There is no shortage of sources claiming that ACC is driving an acceleration of species extinction, but when you look for a list of the species that have gone extinct due to ACC there isn't one.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                          Today Doyle Rice had an article in USAtoday gentled Earth arks 400 consecutive month's of warmer than usual months. You have to Reagan's second term to find a cooler month. You would think even right wingers could see a trend there. Probably not.
                          There was a warming trend in the 20th century. It has pretty much plateaued this century, but of course all years and months after the warming trend will be warmer than before the trend or in the earlier parts of the trend.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                            There was a warming trend in the 20th century. It has pretty much plateaued this century, but of course all years and months after the warming trend will be warmer than before the trend or in the earlier parts of the trend.
                            Most people are in agreement that the trend is being caused by human activity. I think it may be a good idea to start weaning ourselves off of coal and oil.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              Most people are in agreement that the trend is being caused by human activity. I think it may be a good idea to start weaning ourselves off of coal and oil.
                              Why should we try to stop a warming trend? We are in an ice-age. We should thank whatever gods there be for a warming trend.

                              Fossil fuels are natures greatest gift to humanity.

                              There have always been those who were against human progress. Typically, they call themselves "progressives".

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                                Why should we try to stop a warming trend? We are in an ice-age. We should thank whatever gods there be for a warming trend.

                                Fossil fuels are natures greatest gift to humanity.

                                There have always been those who were against human progress. Typically, they call themselves "progressives".
                                X-man let me explain this to you. The root of progressive is the word progress. Try another theory.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X