1 hour ago, DrTuner said:

The advances in medicine are one of the reasons population has exploded. IIRC in Roman times the average life expectancy was under 40y. Wars also took care of excess population. And there were no McDonalds in every corner so famine & co did their part. Mother nature kept the balance.

 

That, if anything, is man made climate change. By eliminating sources of early death we've paved way for human population to explode and result is deforestation, desertification, pollution in urbanized areas, etc, etc, etc. This ball ain't big enough for all of us.

Hopefully in a few decades we'll be able to control the increasing of population through education, without resorting to barbaric means like wars or forced sterilisations, this ball is not yet too small for all of us.

Eventually nature will take care of it with an asteroid, volcanoes, pole shifting, you name it.

18 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Hopefully in a few decades we'll be able to control the increasing of population through education, without resorting to barbaric means like wars or forced sterilisations, this ball is not yet too small for all of us.

Eventually nature will take care of it with an asteroid, volcanoes, pole shifting, you name it.

actually pole shifting isnt nearly as bad as one would expect,

it has happened several times since life became a thing on earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51usJ74pPP8

 

2 hours ago, Forethat said:

The simplest solution would be to simply cull 50% of the population.

It would be a big win for war mongers as well. Nothing but upside for globalist crowd.

2 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

It would be a big win for war mongers as well. Nothing but upside for globalist crowd.

Give it a few more years and I'm confident season will be open all year around.

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

 

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite"

 

President Eisenhower - Farewell Speech - January 17th, 1961

16 hours ago, brokenbone said:

actually pole shifting isnt nearly as bad as one would expect,

it has happened several times since life became a thing on earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51usJ74pPP8

 

Well, i watched the vdo, it seems that the poles are shifting already, although very slowly.

That reminds me of some Eskimos being interviewed and saying that the sunset spot is not the same as it used to be some 50/60 years before.

Yet i have the impression that a catastrophic pole shift could occur sooner or later, and probably has happened in the past.

There are recurrent news (fake ?) on the web of strange buildings being found, buried under the ice, on Antarctica.

Eventually the population will be culled ,nature has a way ,either through war ,disease or some other natural disaster ,but before that (and dont take this as racism) but peoples from other nations will flood in a tsunami into the developed nations and there will be very bad times ,what we are seeing at the moment seems a flood ,but its only a stream ,the tsunami is coming as disasters and starvation , and water shortages take over .

28 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

Eventually the population will be culled ,nature has a way ,either through war ,disease or some other natural disaster ,but before that (and dont take this as racism) but peoples from other nations will flood in a tsunami into the developed nations and there will be very bad times ,what we are seeing at the moment seems a flood ,but its only a stream ,the tsunami is coming as disasters and starvation , and water shortages take over .

Yes, and the origin of it will be Africa. What we saw a few years ago was just a small appetizer. Eventually there will be guns at borders. Unless the explosive population growth is addressed within the continent. 

 

https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/the-numbers

 

 

Quote

More than half of the people added to the world's population over the rest of the century will be in sub-Saharan Africa. This is a reflection of four main factors. First, although it is falling, fertility rate (family size) remains high in most African countries. Second, sub-Saharan Africa has a very young population - its average age in 2018 is just 18 years old. That means that many people are entering their childbearing years. Thirdly, people are living longer in Africa. Fourthly, people tend to have children young, meaning there are more generations alive at any one time.

These figures regarding populations of different continents do not reflect any assumptions about future migration, however. Climate change, poverty and population pressures themselves will lead to a highly mobile global population, with Africa likely to be the largest source of emigrants.

But dare to say this and you're instantly a mad racist eugenics destroyer of the world.

24 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Yes, and the origin of it will be Africa. What we saw a few years ago was just a small appetizer. Eventually there will be guns at borders. Unless the explosive population growth is addressed within the continent. 

 

https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/the-numbers

 

 

But dare to say this and you're instantly a mad racist eugenics destroyer of the world.

Math don't lie.

Unless we get off of this rock, we're doomed as a species. It will be a self-inflicted extermination.

Did anyone read the article, or "viewpoint", published in Bioscience the other day (I've attached a link)? I mention this article in relation to the past days debate regarding scientific consensus.

The report claims to be signed by more than 11,000 scientists. The report went viral and was covered by pretty much every media house in the world.

 

There's at least ONE grown up reaction:

 

 

 

Here's a link to the actual report:

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806?redirectedFrom=fulltext

 

Here's the PDF that lists all signatories (pay special attention to the gynecologists and Micky Mouse at the Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind, as they have signed the report):

supplemental file S1 - signatory list - Ripple et al 10-14-19.pdf

 

2 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Micky Mouse at the Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind

Ah, the famed Namibian center of Climate Research.

9 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Did anyone read the article, or "viewpoint", published in Bioscience (I've attached a link). I mention this article in relation to the past days debate regarding scientific consensus.

The report claims to be signed by more than 11,000 scientists. The report went viral and was covered by pretty much every media house in the world.

 

There's at least ONE grown up reaction:

 

 

 

Here's a link to the actual report:

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806?redirectedFrom=fulltext

 

Here's the PDF that lists all signatories (pay special attention to the gynecologists and Micky Mouse at the Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind, as they have signed the report):

supplemental file S1 - signatory list - Ripple et al 10-14-19.pdf 1.06 MB · 1 download

 

a couple of things are clear tho, these activists truly think appeal to authority

is the way to go, hence the numerous 'surveys' of 97% scientists agree TM,

but more disturbingly its working too, i bet i saw a dozen on this forum

alone that keep referring to micky mouse statement as the 'end of debate'

cause micky mouse said so, and who am I to question micky mouse ??!

19 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Ah, the famed Namibian center of Climate Research.

Not to mention Mr Rob Rob, Sexology at Cambridgge in Bangladesh.

12 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

a couple of things are clear tho, these activists truly think appeal to authority

is the way to go, hence the numerous 'surveys' of 97% scientists agree TM,

That is Rule 2 of Groupthink:

 

Rule 2: Because their shared view is essentially subjective, they need to go out of their way to insist that it is so self-evidently right that a "consensus" of all right-minded people must agree with it. Their belief has made them an "in-group", which declares that any evidence which contradicts it, and the views of anyone who does not agree with it, can be disregarded. 

4 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Not to mention Mr Rob Rob, Sexology at Cambridgge in Bangladesh.

Check out Karla's qualification!

 

16 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Check out Karla's qualification!

 

and

 

Böhme, Hanjo Pensioner Pensioner Namibia

19 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That is Rule 2 of Groupthink:

 

Rule 2: Because their shared view is essentially subjective, they need to go out of their way to insist that it is so self-evidently right that a "consensus" of all right-minded people must agree with it. Their belief has made them an "in-group", which declares that any evidence which contradicts it, and the views of anyone who does not agree with it, can be disregarded. 

Group think you say.

 

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Group think you say.

 

Well, I think it's safe to say it's not a complete group think.

Perhaps we can agree that there's...shall we say...97% group think?

1 hour ago, grollies said:

and

 

Böhme, Hanjo Pensioner Pensioner Namibia

So where is the list of the 97% that agree? 

31 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

So where is the list of the 97% that agree? 

see post #2539?

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Group think you say.

 

The symptoms of groupthink are demonstrated by climate activists on a daily basis.

 

Harvard psychology professor Irving Janis had it accurately pegged as far back as 1972: 

 

I use the term ‘groupthink’ as a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action ... Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgment.

 

You only have to look at the repetitive puppet-babble engaged in by activists and the media to see how well Janis' work describes climate alarmists. They all sound remarkably similar, even down to the words they use.

 

By contrast, the range of opinions held by climate skeptics shows welcome signs of healthy diversity.
 

On 11/6/2019 at 9:12 PM, Forethat said:

I beg to differ.

 

Mankind's biggest battle is the reptile brain mentality that makes people susceptible to whatever verbal excrement someone comes up with. 

If I didn't know any better I'd say the climate panic hoax is nothing but a huge psychological experiment; someone is trying to find out how much BS you can shove down someone's throat - and charge them for the privilege - before they realise they are being played. Like a banjo.

They've known how to play the populace ever since the men in funny hats convinced them that thunder was a god that would hurt them unless they gave the men in funny hats a goat to "sacrifice".

Climate change has all the trappings of religion.

15 hours ago, ivor bigun said:

and water shortages take over

Water will be the cause of wars in the future.

Look at what is going on between Egypt and Ethiopia. If it doesn't get settled by mediation, war is possible.

14 hours ago, GalaxyMan said:

Unless we get off of this rock, we're doomed as a species. It will be a self-inflicted extermination.

If there is intelligent life out there, it will never allow us off this rock. They will have seen what we did to this rock and they ain't gonna allow us to do it elsewhere.

I'd go with the "doomed as a species". Any species that destroys the environment that supports it is doomed, and we've been busily destroying our environment since they learned to make fire.

On 11/7/2019 at 12:49 AM, mauGR1 said:

Well, you can say it's too stupid to be true, yet i'm convinced that the public opinion is constantly surveyed by the governments and the various powers, just for them to know how much bs we can swallow.

..And i'm pretty sure we are served a lot of bs on daily basis by the mainstream media.

I saw the light and no longer watch any main stream media news, as it's far too nauseating to sit through. It's like watching one of those channels that exist only to show advertisements.

How low has western civilisation sunk that people would actually watch an advertisement channel or main stream news?

Notice how it's always about death and destruction, and almost never about good things?

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I saw the light and no longer watch any main stream media news, as it's far too nauseating to sit through. It's like watching one of those channels that exist only to show advertisements.

How low has western civilisation sunk that people would actually watch an advertisement channel or main stream news?

Notice how it's always about death and destruction, and almost never about good things?

I stopped watching tv in my 20s, except for the random football game with friends, a few years later it was clear to me the extremely powerful brainwashing effect it has on people, turning them into consumerist robots..Enough said.

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I stopped watching tv in my 20s, except for the random football game with friends, a few years later it was clear to me the extremely powerful brainwashing effect it has on people, turning them into consumerist robots..Enough said.

A year I spent in Antarctica without tv in my 30s convinced me I would be better without it in my life. Unfortunately, although I managed a year or so without, I was seduced by the dark side and became an addict for such shows as Hill Street Blues ( I even bought a VDO recorder so I wouldn't miss any shows ). However, tv has become so dire and the good shows so infrequent that I only turn my tv on to watch DVDs.

The only news channel I'll watch when I have the opportunity in someone else's place is Al Jazeera. All the rest are rubbish.

 

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A year I spent in Antarctica without tv in my 30s convinced me I would be better without it in my life. Unfortunately, although I managed a year or so without, I was seduced by the dark side and became an addict for such shows as Hill Street Blues ( I even bought a VDO recorder so I wouldn't miss any shows ). However, tv has become so dire and the good shows so infrequent that I only turn my tv on to watch DVDs.

The only news channel I'll watch when I have the opportunity in someone else's place is Al Jazeera. All the rest are rubbish.

 

Yes I agree, I avoid mainstream news sources for the most part. And when I see them, I take what they say with a grain a salt and hold my opinion until I see confirmation from enough sources. I don't have any traditional TV reception. Waste of time.

When I do watch television back in the west, when I visit, I am stunned at the constant onslaught of consumerism. Even many of the shows are just platforms for product placement.

How can anyone be happy when they are told a 1000 times a day that they don't have enough stuff, or the right stuff.

 

Don't watch ads, don't watch the OPN (Official Propaganda News channels) and you will see that life isn't about stuff. And that most people are incapable of independent thought.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If there is intelligent life out there, it will never allow us off this rock. They will have seen what we did to this rock and they ain't gonna allow us to do it elsewhere.

I'd go with the "doomed as a species". Any species that destroys the environment that supports it is doomed, and we've been busily destroying our environment since they learned to make fire.

Even animals don't foul their nests the way humanity has. Phukkking pathetic. ????

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd go with the "doomed as a species". Any species that destroys the environment that supports it is doomed, and we've been busily destroying our environment since they learned to make fire.

I'm a bit more hopeful. After we go all cyborg, and that won't be long from now, there will probably be an AI module included to give yourself a bitchslap if your amygdala tries to hijack your frontal lobes.