Remember me
▼ Content

Why fight climate change? Isn't it natures way of limiting population?



Page 2 of 2<12
15-04-2019 20:30
paramount99
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
We call them 'meteors' when that happens.

A meteor will enter Earth's atmosphere about once every few minutes.

Actually, we call them meteorites when that happens.


No they have to land - hit earth, strike us - before they are meteorites. I remember my A-Grade GCSE from 1788, and a year later Paris going into loony time (fat lot of good it did them) meltdown.
15-04-2019 20:35
paramount99
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
HarveyH55 wrote:
A meteor burns up as it enters the atmosphere.
Meteorites are the ones large enough to make it to the surface, and are of considerable value, better than finding gold with your metal detector.


Agreed most vehemently! My lovely Nickel/Iron beauty of 100mm or so across (it is so heavy - I use it for weight training (LOL)) cost me £100 30-years ago and these days it should be a safe deposit box, but sits on my pc desk instead, reminding me of what metals looked like probably even before the earth had formed more than 4.6 billion years ago! It always brings a smile to my face when I pick it up...
15-04-2019 21:25
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(453)
From NASA...

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/asteroids-comets-and-meteors/meteors-and-meteorites/overview/?page=0&per_page=40&order=id+asc&search=&condition_1=meteor_shower%3Abody_type

Both are meteors, but a meteorite is what hits the ground. Of course, NASA data isn't as reliable as it once was, since joining the Church of Warming. If they are willing to fake climate data, maybe they really did fake a moon landing...
16-04-2019 13:51
paramount99
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
I must say I find it bizarre that there is so much moon landing denial out there - but that's just me. I am science through and through, so am open to anything and willing to change my views or opinions but evidence must be brought forward and tested. There are so many - numerous - images from many lunar orbiting satellites that clearly show all the activity on the moon from manned missions. From the left behind landing stage of the LEM right down to foot tracks - leading to where the footage show us the expeditions took place. It is a bizarre denial, but conspiracy goes deep and for many varied reasons.
16-04-2019 19:28
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(453)
I was joking about that, there are a lot of people who believe it a hoax. It keeps going on, because we never went back. I don't doubt for a moment, that we walked on the moon. It would have been much cheaper, than try to pull off such a hoax. I do find it odd that we never went back, or made plans for a moon colony though. Guess China has plans, and will probably own it. I read a lot of strange things, but as fiction. Just interesting to see how some people try to justify their beliefs, alternative thinking. It's really creative thinking, to bad they could do something useful and productive with their gift. I suppose it's an obsessive/compulsive type disorder, just can't help themselves, after getting hooked on it.
16-04-2019 22:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
paramount99 wrote:
I must say I find it bizarre that there is so much moon landing denial out there - but that's just me. I am science through and through, so am open to anything and willing to change my views or opinions but evidence must be brought forward and tested. There are so many - numerous - images from many lunar orbiting satellites that clearly show all the activity on the moon from manned missions. From the left behind landing stage of the LEM right down to foot tracks - leading to where the footage show us the expeditions took place. It is a bizarre denial, but conspiracy goes deep and for many varied reasons.


It is a bizarre denial indeed. I rank such people right up there with the Chemtrail fearmongers, the ozone hole fearmongers, and the climate fearmongers. Anyone with a good telescope can see the landers on the surface (I mean a GOOD telescope!).
You can see the Luna probes as well. Most of the landers and probes are on the side facing Earth so they could transmit to us.

We also have a laser reflecting array placed on the Moon by the Apollo crews. These arrays are still in use to accurately measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon.


The Parrot Killer
17-04-2019 13:32
paramount99
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Diesel burner wrote:
So I'm sure this isn't a popular point of view but global warming is a good thing because there are way too many people on earth to be sustainable and mother nature is going to fix that. Why try and stop her?

Climate change has no connection to human population numbers being reduced by it to arrive at a more stable populated earth. Or: Climate change (if you want to call it that) is not natures way of limiting earth-born populations - in anyway shape or form. But it can have an effect on the various life forms on the planet, especially so if they cannot adapt to those changes, more so if the changes are rapid. Environment will have an effect on most if not all life forms. If they can't adapt to the new or arisen circumstances, or re-locate, they will reduce in numbers and eventually not survive... Die out! Darwin was/is almost spot on in his theories - even though it was not himself who originally coined the phrase or term: Survival of the fittest, but it is by means of natural selection.

I'm not just a troll,
seriously humans are not going to stop breeding till there is mass starvation and even then they won't stop.
17-04-2019 18:59
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(453)
paramount99 wrote:
Diesel burner wrote:
So I'm sure this isn't a popular point of view but global warming is a good thing because there are way too many people on earth to be sustainable and mother nature is going to fix that. Why try and stop her?

Climate change has no connection to human population numbers being reduced by it to arrive at a more stable populated earth. Or: Climate change (if you want to call it that) is not natures way of limiting earth-born populations - in anyway shape or form. But it can have an effect on the various life forms on the planet, especially so if they cannot adapt to those changes, more so if the changes are rapid. Environment will have an effect on most if not all life forms. If they can't adapt to the new or arisen circumstances, or re-locate, they will reduce in numbers and eventually not survive... Die out! Darwin was/is almost spot on in his theories - even though it was not himself who originally coined the phrase or term: Survival of the fittest, but it is by means of natural selection.

I'm not just a troll,
seriously humans are not going to stop breeding till there is mass starvation and even then they won't stop.


Global warming is pure BS, there is no warming, and CO2 doesn't have any super-properties, which it would need, since it only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. The need to breed is genetic, it's abnormal not to procreate. Even a lot of the folks that have chosen an alternative lifestyle, often go through a breeding phase. Mankind won't over-populate the planet, they like killing each other too much to let it go that far. More likely you'll get killed for what little you have, before you will starve to death. The only reason why we won't stop paying out welfare and food stamps, is there would be a huge spike in violent crimes. Basically, it's extortion, government pays people not to commit crimes. Unfortunately, these people have too much free time, and too little cash to entertain themselves, so many commit crimes anyway, and reproduce often. Mostly what I don't like about the welfare system, is there is little to no oversight or consequences for those who abuse. Little accountability, government just puts it in the budget, and doesn't seem to care where the money goes.
17-04-2019 19:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7102)
HarveyH55 wrote:
paramount99 wrote:
Diesel burner wrote:
So I'm sure this isn't a popular point of view but global warming is a good thing because there are way too many people on earth to be sustainable and mother nature is going to fix that. Why try and stop her?

Climate change has no connection to human population numbers being reduced by it to arrive at a more stable populated earth. Or: Climate change (if you want to call it that) is not natures way of limiting earth-born populations - in anyway shape or form. But it can have an effect on the various life forms on the planet, especially so if they cannot adapt to those changes, more so if the changes are rapid. Environment will have an effect on most if not all life forms. If they can't adapt to the new or arisen circumstances, or re-locate, they will reduce in numbers and eventually not survive... Die out! Darwin was/is almost spot on in his theories - even though it was not himself who originally coined the phrase or term: Survival of the fittest, but it is by means of natural selection.

I'm not just a troll,
seriously humans are not going to stop breeding till there is mass starvation and even then they won't stop.


Global warming is pure BS, there is no warming, and CO2 doesn't have any super-properties, which it would need, since it only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. The need to breed is genetic, it's abnormal not to procreate. Even a lot of the folks that have chosen an alternative lifestyle, often go through a breeding phase. Mankind won't over-populate the planet, they like killing each other too much to let it go that far. More likely you'll get killed for what little you have, before you will starve to death. The only reason why we won't stop paying out welfare and food stamps, is there would be a huge spike in violent crimes. Basically, it's extortion, government pays people not to commit crimes. Unfortunately, these people have too much free time, and too little cash to entertain themselves, so many commit crimes anyway, and reproduce often. Mostly what I don't like about the welfare system, is there is little to no oversight or consequences for those who abuse. Little accountability, government just puts it in the budget, and doesn't seem to care where the money goes.


Frankly, I consider the government science grant programs to be welfare also. It is no different than any other waste of money on welfare.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Why fight climate change? Isn't it natures way of limiting population?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Global Climate Strike: Meet the teenagers skipping school to fight for a greener planet913-04-2019 20:34
Catherine McKenna: Premiers who fight carbon tax ignore climate change at their peril108-04-2019 22:37
Want to Help Fight Climate Change? Have More Children014-03-2019 21:20
The case for spraying (just enough) chemicals into the sky to fight climate change013-03-2019 21:12
petition to create a new Nobel prize for the Fight Against Climate Change415-12-2018 20:54
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact