If you had an account on forum.suprbay.org with at least one post, you do not need to re-register. Your account is still active and your Suprbay username and password will work.

Wow what a speach! (Climate change)
#31
I'm under impression fertility rates are declining due economic factors (low income or dedication to career) on most parts of the world, while self preservation (not going thru the hassle and risk of maternity) on more developed places. The movie Idiocracy tells about it in a tongue-in-cheek way.

Still I believe more probable that war and illness (the other horsemen) will take care of it. Nature's mechanics and Earth's limits aren't new but untill recently we didn't care, and still many don't care at all. As resources are running short and pollution, economics, etc are raising awareness, but it's up to governments to instate regulations, like China and Japan did, because people seem to be careless*.

*Note: Ive heard a lot about females liking being careless. Could it be a natural mechanism to improve reproduction chances, an effect of maternity calling?
Reply
#32
@HB
Thank you for proving my point with your graph on the prior page.
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordp...vs-co2.gif

Temperature clearly LEADS Co2 by around 700 years.

Once again I did not say that that there was no climate change, and that at least a part was not anthropogenic. There are simply more factors in the effects, and some certainly more important than Co2.

The 'scientific' consensus clamored about was a simple questionaire as to whether human activity was contributory to climate change. Of course it is. But it did not imply that all those who answered yes regarded it as as cataclysmic as the AGW fanatics.

Glyphosate is an environmental poison, and carcinogen. In fairness it does not directly destroy soils, but contributes to degradation over time by encouraging overproduction and depletion of soils. Amendments add nutrients in the form of salts, which further deplete soils. Around half the world has banned GMOs. Not without reason. It starterd with some serious studies in Scotland. Monsanto absolutely refuses to co-operate with real studies of its products.

Nukes are indeed a good idea. In 50 years EVs might be the only real alternative, assuming the grid structure has been replaced so as to enable 10x the current capacity. And Peak Oil will make petroleum too expensive to mine.

The earth is currently cooling due to a Solar Minimum, which hopefully is just in its 11 year cycle, but there exists a possibility, much debated that it can launch into a 50 year Maunder Minumum.

We just might *need* AGW.

Point being: Science is by nature contentious. As a kid the 'consensus' was that an Ice Age was coming.

Fossil fuels are rate limited. Fracking produces useless lighter fluid and must be mixed with Venezuela tar oil to be useful. Both increasingly expensive to produce. Not only is EROEI dropping, costs are soaring, and even the Saudis are pumping barrels of salt water for every cup of crude they get.

Point is: The problem is already solved. No need for sociall engineering to solve it.

(Nov 12, 2019, 08:52 am)dueda Wrote: I'm under impression fertility rates are declining due economic factors (low income or dedication to career) on most parts of the world, while self preservation (not going thru the hassle and risk of maternity) on more developed places. The movie Idiocracy tells about it in a tongue-in-cheek way.

Still I believe more probable that war and illness (the other horsemen) will take care of it. Nature's mechanics and Earth's limits aren't new but untill recently we didn't care, and still many don't care at all. As resources are running short and pollution, economics, etc are raising awareness, but it's up to governments to instate regulations, like China and Japan did, because people seem to be careless*.

*Note: Ive heard a lot about females liking being careless. Could it be a natural mechanism to improve reproduction chances, an effect of maternity calling?

From what I understand there have been dramatic decreases in sperm counts at least in the US, and presumably elsewhere, apparently from the toxic effects of the crap in our food supply.

Phytoestrogens, are one probable cause, and biphenyls in plastic cartons are another. Plus, the family unit is currently economically unfeasible. A family now requires TWO wage earners, and with child care costs dramatically rising, with wages flatlining, a person would have to be rich or insane to start a family, unless they were guaranteed an income by being a 'favored' group by the politicians.

Indeed, instincts are not easy to defeat. But doable with the right amount of toxins, drugs, and social engineering.
The Junior Anti-Sex League is coming. If not already here under the 'trans' nonsense.
Reply
#33
The graph shows CO2 leading temperature. All you have to do is draw some vertical lines across it and it is quite clear.

None of the other factors have been demonstrated to be more important than CO2, period. There are other factors, but they are not as important. CO2 is the most important one. This has already been covered in my previous post. And since humanity is the leading producer of CO2 emissions by a long shot (as well as the methane), it goes to follow that humanity is responsible for the current global warming.

Multiple studies have shown the climate consensus, each reproducing about a 97% rate.

Glyphosate has not been demonstrated to be a carcinogen. You are mistaking the determination of a jury as science. It is quite safe for the environment and for people. By using glyphosate, crops do not need to compete with weeds for soil resource, allowing more of the soil resources to be utilized for crop production, meaning less environmental impact for more crop. The greatest evidence for glyphosate being a carcinogen involves massive amounts of glyphosate far exceeding standard amounts, and the increase in incidence is debatable as being meaningful.

GMO bans are because people believe that GMO's are bad, despite that they are not bad. Nothing has even shown GMO's to be anything to be afraid of. Now, if you want to think about logical fallacies, this would be an argument from popularity. You think that most of the people believing GMO's are bad actually means that GMO's are bad. That is a clear nonsequitur, as most people lack the intellectual background to assess the long term medical impact of their diet. The science that studies GMO's has repeatedly shown that GMO's are safe. So, who and what am I going to trust? Is it going to be the people who actually study this stuff for a living, or a bunch of people who aren't?

The Earth is not presently cooling, and it has not been for awhile.
[Image: Solar_irradiance_and_temperature_1880-2018.jpeg]
^ notice the divergence, almost as if other factors are considerably more important than solar cycles.

Global cooling is not, and was not ever scientific consensus. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Given that your ability to assess the consensus right now is demonstrably crap, I have absolutely no faith that you were able to do it better as a kid. You are probably mistaking the cover page of some magazine trying to be edgy as consensus. Further reading: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/11584/1...%252E1.pdf

The problem is not solved. Even if we were to abruptly stop increasing the CO2 level (as in zero emissions), we would still endure more warming from the CO2 already accumulated. Sure, the natural carbon systems of the Earth could conceivably correct the problem over time, it would be over a geologic timescale. If we quit producing CO2 and methane, it would still not be sufficient to meaningfully abate the warming trend. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the economics are increasingly favoring more renewable energies and decreasingly favoring fossil fuels, but its just not enough.
Reply
#34
@waregim: See this post (on Favorite Beverages thread), the soy phytoestrogen myth meets with resistance.
Also I believe, (at least in 3rd World, the new generations are more into sex than ever before! But also believe after the first, unexpected teen pregnancy, most avoid reproduction and use precautions.

(Nov 12, 2019, 15:37 pm)Resurgence Wrote: That is a myth primarily perpetuated by the meat, dairy and egg businesses because they are scared to death about the growth of veganism.
The reason why they would be unsettled is obvious - less money for them.

Quote:The number of U.S. consumers identifying as vegan grew from 1% to 6% between 2014 and 2017, a 600% increase, according to GlobalData.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetforgrieve/2018/11/02/picturing-a-kindler-gentler-world-vegan-month/#2bf3899c2f2b

Here are videos from two vegan bodybuilders and a vegan lecturer that will help clarify things for you:

 

 

Reply
#35
(Oct 07, 2019, 17:47 pm)LZA Wrote:

Every vegan and soy loving guy I've ever known has been a mental fruit cake and to boot at least half of them were also extremely effeminate. Plus the video's hostess has more tattoos than a Klu Klux Klan Grand Dragon serving a life sentence in ADX Florence.

No offense meant but real women want real men and I'm not going to believe what a couple of weirdos on a youtube video have to say about anything.
Reply
#36
I found the types a little divergent but not really "weird". As I don't know of medical studies on the subject, can't say yes or no.
About women, I've often seen them with the weird, bully, and other not entirely conventional types. If they're "real", idk.

I quote:

Phytoestrogen supplements seem to have no serious side effects. But some evidence indicates that high doses of isoflavones may suppress thyroid function in children who have low levels of iodine.
and
The most studied phytoestrogens are soy isoflavones. An analysis of 15 controlled studies concluded that soy isoflavones, whether in foods or supplements, do not change testosterone levels in men.

from https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/phy...ns-and-men

also

While the potentially beneficial effects of phytoestrogen consumption have been eagerly pursued, and frequently overstated, the potentially adverse effects of these compounds are likely underappreciated.
and
As with many other compounds, like alcohol or caffeine, there are many pros and cons associated with moderate soy intake.

from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/

Conclusion: Looks like more research must be done. Couldn't see pictures of the supposed authors, so I can't find them weird or not.
Reply
#37
@HB Vostok clearly shows temperature leads CO2. Historically.

The temp-co2 data for the last centiry is a bit problematic with the rise of sensors in increasimngly urban regions, with heat island effects. But CO2 has a natural sink - it is called Nature. And is essential for photosynthesis. Accumulation of CO2 and heat may be symptomatic of *other* anthropogenic abnormalities, such as deforestation, and AGW warming should not be used as a weapon against industrialization in the First World - which would amount to economic suicide. The Third World is going to ignore Kyoto, and rightfully so.
My point is not that CO2 cannot *in theory* cause global warming to a disastrous degree. It is only that such a disaster is far enough in the future so that as carbon fuels get scarcer and more expensive, innovation and industry will have progressed to the point of eliminating their need. And where they are needed, will not be sufficient to create any notable harm. Assuming of course that sufficient mitigation is effected allow for the natural reuptake of CO2 into the biome.
IOW - reforestation os more important than strangulation of industry.

The criticisms of the glyphosate studies in general is that they are too short in duration, and that have too few participants (apart from metanalyses). The data have been able to persuade the UN tht nevertheless it is a *probable* carcinogen, and placed in the same class os other *known* carcinogens. I would not trust the bias implicit in American funded studies. And neither does a hardly biased source like Bloomburg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/...ill-decide

Study biology: Introns and exons. It had been long assumed that introns were useless deserts of a genome, largely accumulations of junk DNA from viruses, bacteria and other sources, else basic scaffolding. Only recently has it been discovered that they play a vital role in gene expression and development, and also the phenomena of 'frame shifting'.
Take the herpes virus family. It hides in the DNA of cells, and after decades it can emerge and cause 'shingles'.
https://www.the-scientist.com/features/b...nnia-32779
Point being: Introduction of gene sequences that would be lethal in humans (growth accelerators, toxins, etc) blindly being shotgunned into plant DNA is probably not the smartest thing to do. It has *already* killed and caused allergic reactions. That we know about.
If that DNA were to get into gut bactera and expressed, or over time into the human genome there is mo telling what effects it may have.

True genetic engineering would be able to place genes at exact places in the genome so that its functions and effects would be thoroughly understood, and preparations could be made for adverse advents, such as crossing into other variants or polluting a genome, such as GMO corn has done to corn heritage varieties. Like what has happened in Mexico.
Reply
#38
Playing God with genes is like the first neurological procedures (like shocks and lobotomy). We know that is dangerous, shouldn't be done just by "experimenting" (let's just try on a batch and see what happens), and there'll be unforeseen consequences, but... It's for the good of science and we need to find out!
Reply
#39
Indeed.
Because something works now, and with great benefits, is no reason to presume that it cannot have long term disastrous effects.

Like smoking. It improves concentration and makes people calm down. Doctors used to puff on huge cigars to kill oral and lung bacteria. Probably saved millions in a TB epidemic.
But over long term it kills. And not just from cancer.

With GMOs we are dealing with genes that are inherently dangerous, in that they produce toxins that kill things (insecticidal) inhibit enzyme systems (glyposhpate insensitivity), and are carcinogenic (growth promoters). What is worse is that real studies have been suppressed, with Monsanto refusing to turn over sampmes and data to independant testing agencies.
We know has been added too them. But not what metabolic pathways have been damaged or removed. Vitamin content? Amino acid composition (in the presence of shikimate inhibitors). Nutrition.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Can you change your thepiratebay.org password? sonicwim 1 1,261 Nov 23, 2020, 13:55 pm
Last Post: ill88eagle
  Piratebay.org search page change languaje Pipo2020 0 2,423 Jan 17, 2020, 10:51 am
Last Post: Pipo2020
  Wow these HIV charts are scary. soulcity 17 13,251 Apr 21, 2019, 18:40 pm
Last Post: xeitgeist
  What’s not going to change in the next 10 years? Sid 20 33,443 Feb 15, 2019, 14:44 pm
Last Post: contrail
  Tixati only uploaded at 15kb/s, this small change multiplied it 20x instantly xbt 1 6,173 Jan 21, 2017, 01:10 am
Last Post: joew771



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)