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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.