This Is the Way the World Ends

Not with a bang but with a 5 megaton yield thermonuclear blast.

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=SP227838

Should we be helping India with nuclear energy? Here’s my worst case scenario prediction:

Eventually The Islamic Republic of Pakistan will be pumping out 40-50 nukes a year. They’ll go nicely with the F-16’s we’re selling them. And then India’s like “Hey, WTF? I’m not Uncle Sam’s little outsourcing bitch anymore! Thank you, come again.” And so they ramp up the nukes. And China’s all, “Confucius say, Fuck you roundeye!” So they make more nukes. Of course Japan will have to ramp up their military capabilities. And then China responds to Japan’s ramp up with more nukes, causing India to respond with more nukes, and then Pakistan. And then crazy Lil Kim fires nukes at everyone and films it for one of his crazy movies. That’s how we’re all going to die. Good times.

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Not with a bang but with a 5 megaton yield thermonuclear blast.

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=SP227838

Should we be helping India with nuclear energy? Here’s my worst case scenario prediction:

Eventually The Islamic Republic of Pakistan will be pumping out 40-50 nukes a year. They’ll go nicely with the F-16’s we’re selling them. And then India’s like “Hey, WTF? I’m not Uncle Sam’s little outsourcing bitch anymore! Thank you, come again.” And so they ramp up the nukes. And China’s all, “Confucius say, Fuck you roundeye!” So they make more nukes. Of course Japan will have to ramp up their military capabilities. And then China responds to Japan’s ramp up with more nukes, causing India to respond with more nukes, and then Pakistan. And then crazy Lil Kim fires nukes at everyone and films it for one of his crazy movies. That’s how we’re all going to die. Good times.[/quote]

You should seriously consider easing up on the resreational drugs bro, it’s starting to have an effect.

Besides, if this little nuclear scenario of yours doesn’t pan out in less than ten years, we’re all gonna be gone anyways. Don’t you remember?, Algore said we only have ten years left before the environment gives out. And he is an expert you know.

I’m just saying.

2012 i called it. And not by any war.

Ok you doom and gloom prophets, let me ask you a question:

Do you have savings put aside for your eventual retirement? If so, why?

It seems that I read something about everyone being worried about the world coming to an end back in the late 1950’s and early 60’s.

People were building bomb shelters and children in elementary schools were being trained to “duck and cover” in case of a nuclear attack, as if that would help.

I think there are plenty of other things to worry about that have a greater chance of happening. A Hillary Clinton Presidency for example.

My two cents.

First World Countries don’t fight anymore. Too much to lose…little to gain.

India and Pakistan they may have a go at it. More likely Iran hits Israel itself or thru a proxy like Hamas. The Israeli’s respond heavy against multiple nations with nukes. Iran, Syria and anybody else making threats. I don’t think they go first but they will respond overwhelmingly.

China depends too much on Japan and the US. The real power lies in economic pesuasion with the Chinese. Mao isn’t running the place anymore. The new gang is all about the money.

Since we’re speculating…

Someone will soon develop a method to peacefully lobotomize large populations (a small-scale trial experiment has been done recently in Quebec). Hopefully, future nana-lobotomies will cause the populations to be made as docile as sheep.

Nietzsche’s idea of the Ubermensch will come about as those who are not lobotomized will have had the will to do the above. They will be beyond good and evil. The libs will finally have the peace they wanted and longed for, the world of sheeple obediently following their dictums.

Now that Sci-Fi Theatre is over… :wink:

[quote]Split wrote:
2012 i called it. And not by any war.[/quote]

The Mayans called that one a couple thousand years before you did. :wink:

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Not with a bang but with a 5 megaton yield thermonuclear blast.
[/quote]

First of all a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is never going to happen… We are too close to Pakistan, the radiation would wipe out half their population as well, also we have 140 + million muslims in India, who decided not to migrate during the Partition, most of whom have relatives in Pakistan…

Apart from that we have kicked their arse 4 times already… in 1948, 1965 (not to mention just after fighting a war with China in 1962), 1971, 1999. Our Air force annihilated their army, we won the '71 war in just two weeks taking 93,000 Pakistani POW’s.

They wont dare wage a war against us, all they do is send 19 yr old brainwashed madrassa graduates with AK’s to our temples and schools or suicide bombers to board our trains like cowards.

Secondly the last thing China wants is a military misadventure. China only has quantity. Its navy and air force are medieval with obsolete weapons and its personnel aren’t well trained either. Its military though huge in number, lacks strategic lift capabilities to rapidly deploy troops and weapons system to the war zone and India-China border isn’t an ideal place to fight a conventional war either. Neither china nor India would actually go for a war right now since neither can win such a war, both of us have 1 million + troops.

Besides all three countries right now are investing money in their infrastructure and are looking to consolidate their economy, a war is just out of the question, all three countries have had nukes for quite a while now and there has been no threat of any kind.

IMO this deal lays a strong foundation for a long term strategic partnership between the two countries. This commitment coming at a point of time when nukes are a taboo and countries going to war over nukes, US making an exception for India proves the desire on both parties for a long term relationship.

It won’t in any way increase our nuclear weapons. Since under the agreement, the used uranium cannot be diverted to produce nuclear weapons. But we already have enough to produce around 300 - 400 nuclear weapons which is more than enough for India.

However when it comes to power product, it is a different story and this deal would greatly improve our energy production. I hope Indian scientists start working on developing the thorium based fuel cycle rather than depending on the west. Till now, they have been sitting on their bums on this issue.

P.S [quote]Hey, WTF? I’m not Uncle Sam’s little outsourcing bitch anymore! Thank you, come again [/quote]

I found that pretty offensive mate!

[quote]nik19 wrote:
First of all a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is never going to happen… We are too close to Pakistan, the radiation would wipe out half their population as well, also we have 140 + million muslims in India, who decided not to migrate during the Partition, most of whom have relatives in Pakistan…

Apart from that we have kicked their arse 4 times already… in 1948, 1965 (not to mention just after fighting a war with China in 1962), 1971, 1999. Our Air force annihilated their army, we won the '71 war in just two weeks taking 93,000 Pakistani POW’s.

They wont dare wage a war against us, all they do is send 19 yr old brainwashed madrassa graduates with AK’s to our temples and schools or suicide bombers to board our trains like cowards.

P.S Hey, WTF? I’m not Uncle Sam’s little outsourcing bitch anymore! Thank you, come again

I found that pretty offensive mate![/quote]

Well that’s a logical, rational reason for a nuclear war not breaking out. So that will likely be the case as long as Pakistan is ruled by logical, rational leaders. But the country is ruled by a military dictator (who has faced a couple assassination attempts) and is home to Islamic fanatics. Not exactly stable.

Also, mutual assured destruction only works as a deterence if both parties are afraid of dying. It’s the crazy “martyr syndrome” that worries me. You can’t reason with that type of mindset and common sense doesn’t apply when they think they’ll get to bang 72 virgins. They could care less who they take out along the way.

[quote]
P.S Hey, WTF? I’m not Uncle Sam’s little outsourcing bitch anymore! Thank you, come again

I found that pretty offensive mate![/quote]

Really? I thought it was funny.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Since we’re speculating…

Someone will soon develop a method to peacefully lobotomize large populations (a small-scale trial experiment has been done recently in Quebec). Hopefully, future nana-lobotomies will cause the populations to be made as docile as sheep.

[/quote]

It’s called cable television.

[quote]Michael570 wrote:

Well that’s a logical, rational reason for a nuclear war not breaking out. So that will likely be the case as long as Pakistan is ruled by logical, rational leaders. But the country is ruled by a military dictator (who has faced a couple assassination attempts) and is home to Islamic fanatics. Not exactly stable.[/quote]

Fair enough mate… you make some good points… Pakistan isnt exactly stable as you so rightly say, I don’t trust Musharraf as much as the American Govt does… maybe its just a Hindu thing… or maybe its because we have arguably suffered more terrorist attacks than any other nation because of Pakistani based militant groups and even the govt itself, so we find it a bit difficult to swallow when Pakistan is called an Ally in the war against terrorism.

Musharraf is a two faced bastard… at one end he is sucking up to the West on the other hand is isn’t doing nearly enough to stop the militant groups attacking India… but he is playing a very dangerous game… the majority of the Pakistani population are incredibly religious and to an extent even fanatic… they hate the West a lot more than they hate India… and they do not like what he is doing. If he does get killed… and a new radical leader takes his place… then it wont be pretty.

However having said that It would still be unlikely for a nuclear war to break out because no Pakistani leader would like the blood of thousands of muslims on his hands, a nuclear attack on India… would most definitely have muslim casualties. There is not much difference between Indian Muslims and Pakistani’s really… Indian muslims just decided to stay in India… they are generally a lot less religious and very moderate. The Pakistani’s are the opposite… they wanted to live in an all muslim country under the shariah law.

And if god forbid… they did attack us… we wouldn’t reply with nukes and kill their civilians, that isnt the way we work… Im pretty sure the World would be very swift to take action against Pakistan and India would assist militarily.

Yea you’ve pretty much hit the nail on head with the “martyr syndrome”… its very scary, when they think blowing themselves up on 7 trains filled with young college students returning from their first day at college… is justifiable.

As much as they hate us and however bad we may seem to them… I would like one of them to tell me one occassion, when a hindu strapped a bomb to himself and killed innocent Pakistani’s… or infact name one occassion when an Indian has ever crossed the border and committed any act of terrorism in Pakistan.

[quote]
P.S Hey, WTF? I’m not Uncle Sam’s little outsourcing bitch anymore! Thank you, come again

I found that pretty offensive mate!

Really? I thought it was funny[/quote]

Well actually it was funny… but I couldn’t gauge the tone you were saying it in, one of the annoying aspects of the Internet. lol.

Peace

Nik

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Since we’re speculating…

Someone will soon develop a method to peacefully lobotomize large populations (a small-scale trial experiment has been done recently in Quebec). Hopefully, future nana-lobotomies will cause the populations to be made as docile as sheep.

Nietzsche’s idea of the Ubermensch will come about as those who are not lobotomized will have had the will to do the above. They will be beyond good and evil. The libs will finally have the peace they wanted and longed for, the world of sheeple obediently following their dictums.

Now that Sci-Fi Theatre is over… ;)[/quote]

What are you talking about headhunter, they already got you. Look under that bandage on your forehead. You might see the letters F O X.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Besides, if this little nuclear scenario of yours doesn’t pan out in less than ten years, we’re all gonna be gone anyways. Don’t you remember?, Algore said we only have ten years left before the environment gives out. And he is an expert you know.

I’m just saying.

[/quote]

First of all, Gore is just saying what EVERY legitimate environmental scientist in the world is saying. Gore is just the messenger.

Second of all, the 10-years thing is not when the world ends… ten years is when the environmental danage is so great, that scientists believe we may not be able to recover. That would mean a steadily declining environment over the next decades.

Third of all, you’re a fucking dumbass who should read more and spout off less.

I’m just saying.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Besides, if this little nuclear scenario of yours doesn’t pan out in less than ten years, we’re all gonna be gone anyways. Don’t you remember?, Algore said we only have ten years left before the environment gives out. And he is an expert you know.

I’m just saying.

First of all, Gore is just saying what EVERY legitimate environmental scientist in the world is saying. Gore is just the messenger.[/quote]

Funny how you preface the legitimacy of environmental scientists on their agreement with algore. Are you saying there are no legitimate environmental scientists who disagree with algore and the theory of man made global warming all together?

To imply that environmental scientists who flat out dissagree with the theory of man made global warming, and state that it is an unproven theory at best, are illegitimate due to not siding with your precious algore and the environmentalist who do put stock in this unproven theory is intellectually dishonest.

[quote]
Second of all, the 10-years thing is not when the world ends… ten years is when the environmental danage is so great, that scientists believe we may not be able to recover. That would mean a steadily declining environment over the next decades.[/quote]

Another totally unproven theory from algore and his army of unproven scientists. Hey junior, hitch a ride to cluetown and get yourself a fucking clue. Doom and gloom forecasts have been made for a long, long time. They’ve almost become part and parcel to the environmentalist whacko culture.

Here, as a curtesy to you, I’ve done some of the legwork for you.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3185
The Accuracy of Environmentalist Predictions
by Walter Williams


Before we accept environmentalists’ claims that the sky is falling, let’s survey some of their past predictions. At the first Earth Day celebration, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed. In 1968, Paul Erlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted world famine by 1977 and the earth’s 5 billion population starving back to 2 billion people by 2025. In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000. World food production cannot keep pace with the galloping population.”

This is a really good article that I highly doubt you’ll read the entirety of.

[b][i]Science and Public Policy
Our man in science goes to Congress

Ronald Bailey[/b]

…Policy makers must be very cautious about rushing to adopt policies to respond to alleged environmental crises. As physicist Edward Teller reminded us: “Highly speculative theories of worldwide destruction?even of the end of life on Earth?used as a call for a particular kind of political action serve neither the good reputation of science nor dispassionate political thought.”

I hope that I have also made it clear that it is very important to hold people to account for their past predictive failures. Also, have patience, the scientific process and peer review will eventually point us to the truth. Finally, it should be clear that environmentalist advocates keep making the same mistake over and over: they constantly underestimate the power of technology and science, and underestimate the power of markets to solve emerging problems. Thank you for your attention and I would be happy to answer any questions. [/i]

Ahhh, ya just gotta love those environmentalist whackos. The following is a collection of quotes from environmentalist ideologs.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/744607/posts
[i]Environmentalist Wacko Quotes

By John Hawkins

Environmentalist wackos are anti-progress, anti-capitalism, anti-American, anti-poor, make spectacularly incorrect predictions about the climate, and quite frankly some of these people have MORE FRIGHTENING beliefs than al-Queda (I haven’t heard any Al-Queda spokesmen talk longingly about a planet without humans on it). You may think I’m exaggerating, but you won’t after you read these quotes…

Attack Of The Socialist-Luddites

The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state. - Kenneth Boulding, originator of the “Spaceship Earth” concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion – guilt-free at last! – Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue

Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process . . . Capitalism is destroying the earth. – Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land. – David Foreman, Earth First!

Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. – Pentti Linkola

If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other. – Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth - Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22

The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world – John Shuttleworth

What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. – Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

Kill 'Em All And Let God Sort 'Em Out

I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing…This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run. – Economist editorial

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity?s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight – David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. – Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS – Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. – David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans. – Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. – Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.” – Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

Poverty For ‘Those People’

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels. – Carl Amery

Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby – Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem – Lamont Cole

If there is going to be electricity, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered – Gar Smith – editor of the Earth Island Institute’s online magazine The Edge

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them. – Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

Wrong Again

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. – Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer – Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 – Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. – Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion – Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century – Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. – Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. – Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. – Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)[/i]

[quote]
Third of all, you’re a fucking dumbass who should read more and spout off less.

I’m just saying.[/quote]

Ahahaha!

Well. I guess thats it then, I’ll just pack it in and go home now. I mean, Bradley just hit one out of the damn park with this little gem of a “debate point”. You da man bradley.

Seriously though, I think what you meant to say was this, “Third of all, you’re a fucking dumbass for not accepting these unproven theories of man made global warming at face value who should read more of the right stuff and spout off less about what a tool I am”.[/i]

While I don’t have the energy to play “source-a-thon” with bigflamer, I will say that gravity, evolution, and climate change are pretty close to equally aknowledged by the scientific community. While there are a few people floating around claiming that climate change is natural they are a tiny minority. Most of these scientists are also on the payroll of someone with a vested intrest in climate change being natural.

It is also useful to point out, as I am forced to over…and over…and over…again, NOTHING gets “proven” in science, that ISN’T how science works. Nothing ever in the history of science has ever been “proved,” so your right…climate change hasn’t been “proven” its JUST a theory…along with gravity, plate tectonics, and evolution.

I think the OP is on the right track with the threat of nuclear war but also I think there are much more pressing issues than Indian and the Middle East. It goes something like this…

Resource scarcity (water, land, minerals, oil, etc) is the source of most human conflict. The resources of the earth, required for human civilization, are finite. These resources are already being consumed
in a manner that both denies them to most of the world and reduces their capacity for renewal (climate change significantly exacerbates this situation through drought, desertification, deforestation, famine, and rising sea levels).

The nation currently consuming most significantly is the US. China is attempting to provide a standard of living for its people, equivilant to that which is found in the US.

The earth simply does not have the resources to support both nations with that standard of living (well, really the earth doesn’t have the resources to support ONE nation in that manner, but thats a different rant).

One of two things is going to happen. Either one nation will decide that does not need that kind of wealth or the US and China will go to war. This may be a cold war, a proxy war, or a “hot” war. Considering how close the world came to a nuclear exchange in the cold war, I think all are about equally dangerous.

I think we are buggered. I am not willing to say “oh, but we humans are made of magic, we will overcome all obstacles with our science and force of will”. Sorry bud, it doesn’t work like that.

Civilizations collapse. It has happened over…and over…and over again. The vast majority of collapsed civilizations don’t rebuild. The only civilization that has never collapsed is the Chinese. The only reason they are still kicking around is because they have been blessed with psychotically fertile land.

The big difference between the last bunch of times Western civilization collapsed (see: dark ages) and the next one is that we won’t be able to recover again. Western civilization managed to rebuild itself because the resources required to build a civilization where still easily available (well that and colonialism), thats not the case now. All the mineral wealth of the world is now deeeeeeep underground, only accessable with advanced technology.

Buggered.

[quote]Taran wrote:
While I don’t have the energy to play “source-a-thon” with bigflamer, I will say that gravity, evolution, and climate change are pretty close to equally aknowledged by the scientific community. While there are a few people floating around claiming that climate change is natural they are a tiny minority. Most of these scientists are also on the payroll of someone with a vested intrest in climate change being natural.

It is also useful to point out, as I am forced to over…and over…and over…again, NOTHING gets “proven” in science, that ISN’T how science works. Nothing ever in the history of science has ever been “proved,” so your right…climate change hasn’t been “proven” its JUST a theory…along with gravity, plate tectonics, and evolution.

I think the OP is on the right track with the threat of nuclear war but also I think there are much more pressing issues than Indian and the Middle East. It goes something like this…

Resource scarcity (water, land, minerals, oil, etc) is the source of most human conflict. The resources of the earth, required for human civilization, are finite. These resources are already being consumed
in a manner that both denies them to most of the world and reduces their capacity for renewal (climate change significantly exacerbates this situation through drought, desertification, deforestation, famine, and rising sea levels).

The nation currently consuming most significantly is the US. China is attempting to provide a standard of living for its people, equivilant to that which is found in the US.

The earth simply does not have the resources to support both nations with that standard of living (well, really the earth doesn’t have the resources to support ONE nation in that manner, but thats a different rant).

One of two things is going to happen. Either one nation will decide that does not need that kind of wealth or the US and China will go to war. This may be a cold war, a proxy war, or a “hot” war. Considering how close the world came to a nuclear exchange in the cold war, I think all are about equally dangerous.

I think we are buggered. I am not willing to say “oh, but we humans are made of magic, we will overcome all obstacles with our science and force of will”. Sorry bud, it doesn’t work like that.

Civilizations collapse. It has happened over…and over…and over again. The vast majority of collapsed civilizations don’t rebuild. The only civilization that has never collapsed is the Chinese. The only reason they are still kicking around is because they have been blessed with psychotically fertile land.

The big difference between the last bunch of times Western civilization collapsed (see: dark ages) and the next one is that we won’t be able to recover again. Western civilization managed to rebuild itself because the resources required to build a civilization where still easily available (well that and colonialism), thats not the case now. All the mineral wealth of the world is now deeeeeeep underground, only accessable with advanced technology.

Buggered.

[/quote]

This theory only makes sense if you assume that technology will cease to develop and grow and that all current trends will continue, at the present rate, infinetly. It’s the classic mistake that economists and that those that seek to predict the future make over and over.

The world of 1850 is far different from the world of 1950. The pace of change is now staggering. The world of 2050 will be different still. I’ll guess it will be far better. Progess of the human condition has been steady. Often uneven but steady. Poor men today live better and longer then the rich of medieval times or even preindustrial times.

It is doubtful that we have discovered all the energy sources that exist or that can be tapped. Also very doubtful that China will continue to grow at it’s present rate. It will bust at some point, retrench and then grow again. Maybe it comes to war. Maybe the global economy expands due to new innovation and developments, like it has since the beginning of civilization. This is a far more likely scenario.

Global Warming is hardly a law of nature. It’s a theory jealously guarded by it’s proponents. If you criticize it you are targeted by the guardians and believers of this theory as a fool. They would be better off debating the issues and seeking a better understanding of the variables. I don’t buy it but I don’t discount it either. I’m not going to vote for spending trilllions of dollars on the problem until I’m convinced. The 10 years Al Gore talks about has more to do with his mortality then the actual time frame of the problem. Not everyone is as naive as he thinks.

I find it funny that we can disclaim any ideology by stating that only a “minority” of people believe something to be true. It should be obvious that a scientific theory usually only happens in the minority to begin with. Science isn’t democracy and shouldn?t be treated as such–that means it doesn?t require a majority belief for it to be “truth”. How many people believed or even understood Einstein’s general theory of gravitation before it started to become a generally accepted principle in the universe? It took measurements of the red shift, the Lense-Thirring effect, and gravitational lensing–and it was only by the minority of the scientists who carried out experimentation on these predictions–before it was accepted. This is not the same thing as the public blindly accepting that which they don’t understand but people who can understand and explain with undeniable mathematical certitude what it means–i.e., predict the future outcome of measurements based on those mathematical models. While this may not prove a theory it does make a strong argument for it.

Before anyone starts to deny or accept the effects of climate change ask what the predictors are or should be that we should measuring and how can we do this accurately–and will a measurement made today accurately predict a measurement made tomorrow? Are these models acceptable mathematically? How many people who have chimed in on this thread even understand the mathematics behind climatology to give an opinion on the subject? I do not therefore any opinion I may have is just faith that the source I am quoting is accurate.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I find it funny that we can disclaim any ideology by stating that only a “minority” of people believe something to be true. It should be obvious that a scientific theory usually only happens in the minority to begin with. Science isn’t democracy and shouldn?t be treated as such–that means it doesn?t require a majority belief for it to be “truth”.[/quote]

While I’d say that a majority of climate scientist agree that we are currently in a period of global warming, there is a lot of disagreement on the degree of impact human activity is having.

Our various climate models are not accurate. Climate is composed of mostly chaotic systems (from Chaos Theory) which are incredibly difficult to model accurately.

There’s no way you’re getting absolute mathematical certitude in climate models.

Even Einstein’s Relativity in incorrect, or at least incomplete, since it cannot be reconciled with the quantum world.

Therein lies the problem. We can take measurements now; and use some from the recent past to try and discern trends; but none of our currently existing models accurately predict climate even for a short period in the future.

For example, this year was predicted to be a worse year than 2005 for hurricanes. Can you name this year’s Katrina?

That pretty much sums up the whole problem. How wise is it to endorse enormously expensive international accords (like Kyoto), when the whole branch of study is based on educated speculation rather than accurate models?

The problem with using those models is that we don’t really know the extent of human contribution on the problem; nor if we can actually do anything about it; nor if - assuming we have a measurable impact and that we can correct it - it might be too late to do so.

Basically, because global warming is seen as a bad thing, we have to do something, anything really, whether or not we can expect concrete results from those actions. We don’t know what we can do; how much of it we need to do; or the timeframe in which to do it. But still, something must be done.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Even Einstein’s Relativity in incorrect, or at least incomplete, since it cannot be reconciled with the quantum world.

[/quote]

You had to bring that up…

Now because you said so no one on this site will believe in gravitation–even if they don’t understand what that said reconciliation of quantum mechanics implies.

I’m going with my GUT on this one.

:slight_smile: