Too many people
Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change well deserve
the Nobel Peace Prize. Climate warming is a fact and human activity is a factor.
However, the studies don't talk about the real basic cause: overpopulation.
Doubling and redoubling the Earth's population can only lead to ultimate
disaster. Go to any Third World country and you see swarms of malnourished, uneducated, sickly children living in grinding,
hopeless poverty. We are getting hints of that in this country.
Frederick C. Sage, Boulder
lets hope algore removes himself from the population then.
this whole this was a joke and is proven more so every day. al just needed some attention so he created a problem he could talk about and get a bunch of morons to follow along.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 06:25 AMI'd just wish people would stop awarding him for nothing.He's done nothing.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 07:22 AMAl wins instead of a true hero. A woman from WWII who saved over 2000 children from the death camps in Poland. Sneaking them out of the country under the eyes of the nazis. Hmmm , have to think about who contributed more to man. A savior of children or a liar about global warming.
No wonder the nobel Peace prize hasn't any creditability.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 07:24 AMIf the sun supernovas tomorrow, what are you going to do about it ?
Posted by Fresh on October 19, 2007 07:31 AMMelt!!!!!!! Bwahahahahahahahahahaha
don't worry, I don't plan on extinguishing your planet for about 4 billion more years, plenty of time for global warming to kill you all off.
btw I am responsible for that too
Posted by The SUN on October 19, 2007 07:35 AMFred, what gets me is that we continue allow third world nations to export their third world people to the United States. Here, by some accounts, they have10 times the impact on the globe than if they would have remained in their own country. Another reason the United States must place a moratorium on immigration and stop illegal immigration completely.
Posted by Ben on October 19, 2007 07:39 AMplease all of you who do believe in algores global warming bs, please,please do us all a favor and stop spreading co2 into the atmosphere that the rest of us need to live. do your part to help algore out and stop exhailing so much co2.
we all will thank you
Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz received the 1949 Nobel Prize in medicine for "his discovery of the therapeutic value of [prefrontal lobotomy] in certain psychoses," including depression and schizophrenia. The prefrontal lobotomy operation, in which the nerve fibers connecting the frontal lobe with other parts of the brain were cut, and which often made patients zombie-like, would be repudiated by the medical community within a decade.
Al Gore, the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, is a similarly poor choice, one likely not to stand the test of time.
Posted by Hank on October 19, 2007 08:05 AMFrederick,
Global warming may be a fact, but human caused global warming is a farce and all Al Gore is good for is spreading fear about this bogus assumption. 20' vs. 20" by the UN the UN's numbers are less than 10% of what Mr. Gore is propogandizing and you expect us to beleive either one of these people or groups?
That can't even agree on how much flooding our coasts are going to endure let alone how much they intend to "tax" us for our sins.
You and his ilk are all followers like cows to slaughter and cannot think for yourselves let alone the rest of us. So please stop saying that this "debate is over" and that it is all human kinds fault because as you must know there has been global temperature change since way back before the Dinosaurs, in fact since earth became a planet. There have been great Freezes and then great thaws - 1 degree in 100 years is hardly scary enough for me to believe us humans have caused this.
Nobel Prize> Nobel Peace Prize, is like comparing apples to oranges. Hank has no sense of logic
Posted by on October 19, 2007 08:34 AMWhat is humorous is the way so many posters blame Al Gore for the global warming push. It's quite true that he has make it a popular cause among the common folk, but there are a plethora of scientists and others who are at least convinced as Al Gore is that global warming is real and that man contributes to it.
There is a riveting debate going on. We don't know now how it will turn out. It's clear that the proponents of global warming now have the initiative, but its opponents are gaining strength. There are serious minded and intelligent people on both sides, and it's unfortunate that the vast majority of posts on threads such as this are hotheads like Jack Bauer who call those who believe global warming is real farcical. But it is the nature of forums such as this that you don't get much in the way of intelligent and thoughtful posts.
Posted by Truth on October 19, 2007 08:58 AMTRUTH,
there is nothing you can do to stop me!
Your planet is doomed
Posted by The SUN on October 19, 2007 09:07 AMIt is true of the zealots on both sides of the global warming issue, that they all go by the propaganda of their faction and refuse to consider any opposing view. That gets in the way of any attempt to acertain the truth. Get all the zealots out of the mix. Look at ALL the evidences for and against. That is the only way to know what is so and what isn't
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 19, 2007 09:11 AMSages comments concerning overpopulation seem logical. We have more pollution now than we can handle and the "storage space" for this stuff is disappearing. We better get this population matter settled or the global warming debate will not be a one of who's right or wrong. It will be meaningless.
Posted by Stan B on October 19, 2007 09:48 AMGreat letter Frederick!
There are way too many people on this planet!
Why dont you get the ball rolling by offing Truth and then yourself.
LIBERALS ARE IDIOTS
Posted by on October 19, 2007 09:58 AMJack Bauer:
So please stop saying that this "debate is over" and that it is all human kinds fault because as you must know there has been global temperature change since way back before the Dinosaurs, in fact since earth became a planet. There have been great Freezes and then great thaws - 1 degree in 100 years is hardly scary enough for me to believe us humans have caused this.
The pattern of past climate change and the causes have been well understood for a few decades now. Changes over the last 500,000 years are particularly well understood and collaborated from several different sources (ice & sediment cores, tree rings etc).
Recent conditions however do not match this pattern making it a logical fallicy to assert that because climate has changed in the past due to natural causes therefore changes being currently observed are also due to natural causes.
Posted by CL on October 19, 2007 10:19 AMSage,
We were warned by the population bomb alarmists back in the 70s that by the turn of the century there would be far too many people on this planet to sustain ourselves. It would be a catastrophe!!
What happened? While many have died of starvation through the years, technolocgy advanced to allow great advances in the ability to feed many more people, demographic shifts in the advanced countries have led to declining birth rates (U.S. and Western Europe) and other things have occurred. Guess what? we're still here!
The fear mongers continually warn us of looming disasters. Global warming is just the latest one. Somehow, I suspect we'll survive this, too.
What does GW and Al Gore have to do with "Peace" anyway? The Nobel Peace prize has become just another political award, given to somebody whose ideology agrees with the panel.
I love how the left loves to claim that those on the other side of these issues are "deniers" rather than dissenters. Dissent is great, they say (except when you dissent against our favorite political religion - global warming). Kind of hard to deny something that is projected into the future and hasn't happened yet.
Also humorous is the tactic of claiming the right has an exclusive trademark on the politics of fear. That one is not the sole province of either side of the political aisle.
Posted by RU Serious on October 19, 2007 10:25 AMCL.
Don't act like you can stop me. You ability to do or say anything is infantecimile to MY ability to destroy your planet in a nano second
Posted by The SUN on October 19, 2007 10:57 AMAh but Mr. Sun, we understand how your fusion process works. We also understand how your differential rotation ties your magnetic fields in knots and the resulting sunspots and their effect on your total output. We know that your past record of doing this has really been a pretty trivial matter. Your coronal ejections cause more problems to our satellites and power grids than any changes in your output might cause us for many thousands of years to come.
Now in a few billion years you will start to act up in ways that would drastically affect us, but I doubt we will be around by then to worry about it.
Posted by CL on October 19, 2007 12:01 PMCL
if your race continues to piss me off enough, I am going to supernova sooner then you think. don't worry I will survive as a black hole for billions of more years and be even stronger
and arrogance pisses me off, i see it as a challenge to my supreme authority of the solar system.
see this is why I don't go pissing off the black hole in the center of the milky way, because he would take suck us all in and honestly who wants that ???
Mr Sun - Oh come on now, you don't have near enough mass to go supernova even if you wanted to.
Posted by CL on October 19, 2007 12:50 PMCL says,
"The pattern of past climate change and the causes have been well understood for a few decades now. Changes over the last 500,000 years are particularly well understood and collaborated from several different sources (ice & sediment cores, tree rings etc)."
"Recent conditions however do not match this pattern making it a logical fallicy to assert that because climate has changed in the past due to natural causes therefore changes being currently observed are also due to natural causes."
In your opinion CL.
Why is it then that the chances are much, much greater that it is the sun or natural variations in the earths atmoshere (that have been shown to be the case in the past) than the very minute possibility that we as human beings can have this much influence on the long term weather on earth?
I think it is a far stretch to believe data from one side and not at least consider the data from the other side, I've read alot of data from both sides and developed an opinion on this topic - I'm a believer in natural cycles based on that research.
You however probably never look at anything except from the pro-human caused crowd, that is called an agenda - you have one and your is to believe it is all us humans fault .(remember your 500,000 years of data statement? - this new data is all from within the last 100 years, a difference of 5000 times or 499,900 years as long)
In the grand scheme of things "recent" 100 years of data (some questionable from the early years of tracking and recording) vs. 500,000 years of researched data is a no brainer for me. Once again very minute for a whole 1 degree increase in 100 years.
My belief based on data that it is part of larger natural cycle as it always has been, but then again I look at both sides and determined that through my own research and OPINION - not listening to your poster boy Al Gore who also has an opinion.
Posted by Jack Bauer on October 19, 2007 01:57 PMHank, Science is self correcting. Pointing out a few times when science was slow to correct something or one mans work that was not helpful, will not change the debate on this subject.
The Earth is losing its glaciers and fresh melt water is pouring into the oceans, this can reverse the "Salt Dump" in the Atlantic and reverse the Gulf Stream.
You need to think more on the consequences of global warming, all of you anons, then how clever your little posts are. If messing up Al Gores name is your best response, that is pretty pathetic for grown men.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 19, 2007 02:09 PMAl Gore is real smart.When he ran for president he pushed for more gun control.This move cost him at least 5 states and the election.His gun control lie didn't work and his Climate Change lie will probably fall flat.Oh I forgot it may go over well with the "global community" and after all isn't that who the Democrats are working for. Because it sure isn't the American citizen.
Posted by An American on October 19, 2007 03:48 PMMr Bauer -
We know quite a bit about the natural influences on the earths temperature. For example, try googling Milankovitch and you might find out that we've known about the impacts of periodic changes in the earth's orbit for quite some time.
We know from ices cores and sediment samples going back about 650,000 years that Milankovitch cycles were the single greatest influence on the earths temperature during that period.
Because of that, and the known periods of the solar cycles, it can be shown the solar variation for that period had very little influence on the earths temperature. So why would we assume solar variation suddenly has a significant impact on earths temperatures??
So that's one way we can rule out solar variation.
Orbital variation is a known quantity.
So there's two examples of natural variation that we know about - got any others or do you just deal in vague insinuations?
I'll get to human influence in a moment.
I think it is a far stretch to believe data from one side and not at least consider the data from the other side, I've read alot of data from both sides and developed an opinion on this topic - I'm a believer in natural cycles based on that research. You however probably never look at anything except from the pro-human caused crowd, that is called an agenda - you have one and your is to believe it is all us humans fault .(remember your 500,000 years of data statement? - this new data is all from within the last 100 years, a difference of 5000 times or 499,900 years as long) In the grand scheme of things "recent" 100 years of data (some questionable from the early years of tracking and recording) vs. 500,000 years of researched data is a no brainer for me
Ah, so now you draw conclusions about my sources based on an unfounded presumption. Care to provide a few examples?
Since you know so much about what I have looked at, why don't you take a shot at my post concerning the ratio of carbon isotopes C13 & C12 a few threads down. Since I provided one line of evidence for human actities influence on the atmosphere and you know so much about what I've looked at you surely must have seen it. That's one set of evidence where current conditions don't match past patterns so your non-specific "100 years of data" complaint isn't even rellevant.
... but then again I look at both sides and determined that through my own research and OPINION - not listening to your poster boy Al Gore who also has an opinion.
I can't stand Al Gore (and have said so on these forums) so you need to do a better job of argueing your position rather than falling back on unfounded and unsupported opinions asserted as fact.
Scary letter just in time for Halloween.
The lofty Mr. Sage, appropriate name, writes of swarms of malnourished, uneducated, sickly children living in grinding, hopeless poverty with the insinuation that they are fueling the "global warming" that is disaffecting his more viable life there in Boulder.
Chicken Littles- Please consult a world map or globe. Ponder the following data:
World Population: 6,602,224,175
Texas Square Miles: 268,581
Size of lots: 10,000
Number of lots per sq. mile: 8067
People per lot: 3
Number of lots in Texas: 2,166,868,535
Or 3.04 people per 10,000 square foot lot.
Consider Texas. Now that you are armed with the knowledge that every family (on earth) can have a 10K square foot lot and it would only fill the state of Texas, are you sure the world is too crowded? You might want to gauge man’s ability to warm the globe considering the scope of his physical presence in comparison to--- the Sun for instance.
I know, I know there is a .0001% error in the above calculation. The conclusion is the same. If we want to add roads and parks consider Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Still, are there really too many people? Think of the progressive utopia, all of the world’s population in nifty, non-sustaining, three person families. Each family with a 10K square foot lot, parks, schools, roads (or donkey paths since cars would be banned) all neatly settled in Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. The rest of the world could be left to “Mother Nature” while we sing songs of peace and love with our new found friends. Doesn’t that sound wonderful!
Posted by kobetabber on October 20, 2007 10:15 AMIs it too late to call dibs on what part of Texas we want to live in, kobetabber?
Also, about the entertaining notion that manmade global warming is obviously a hoax because the planet naturally goes through warming and cooling periods, I've always wondered: does the hole in the ozone layer (which has necessitated us wearing hats or slathering ourselves in sunscreen if we're going to be out in the sun for longer than ten minutes) likewise come and go at regular intervals?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 20, 2007 10:15 AMSharon B's post on Friday mentioned the possiblilty of the reversal of the Gulf Stream engine which may occur as more fresh water is dumped into the oceans. Some of you might want to look into this and get updated on the scenarios of such an event (facinating or scary for humans).
Posted by Stan B on October 20, 2007 12:22 PMHow about all the people that are so concerned that over population is ruining the environment help cure it by just commiting a late-term abortion
Posted by Bingo Skunk on October 20, 2007 11:02 PM