World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
It has been calculated that the Earth at present can only sustain a human population of 9-15 billion. With this knowledge you will see efforts to depopulate the earth maybe even within your lifetime. Let’s hope we are not victims of this flawed mindset.

Indeed it is a flawed mindset..to put it mildly!

Why resort to de-populating earth of humans when all you have to do is control the population so that it does not get out of control? Isn't that a responsibilty of government to oversee?

And what constitutes a sustainable earth is debateable. Some will say 9 billion, others 15 billion and some 2 billion. I have a solution for our mentally/spiritually challenged representatives: 2-3 children per family and anyone with more pays higher taxes or goes to jail in extreme cases.

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
Knowing that this environment is doomed with or without us. Which is better? Controlling the population, and ensuring the environment remains relatively the same, or developing the technology to manage the environment thus enabling Earth to support human populations well into the trillions.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Donkey_Dean]

I would hate to live in a world populated by trillions.

there is no doubt the government is exploiting global warming and there is a lot of misleading studies and media circuses but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is happeneing. i just don't support the commercial way of fixing the problem. anarcho primitivism all the way, soloution to most of man's problems

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I would hate to live in a world populated by trillions.

That’s not something you ever have to worry about friend!

Lord only knows what evolutionary changes a trillion+ population would cause. Who knows maybe we would even seen telekinesis and the like. Maybe we would see changes like those in ant colonies with humans born pre disposed for certain tasks. The technology would be unimaginable, that’s for sure! It’s all for not though anyway. We are a doomed species as we are bound to our doomed environment. The genius of today all says be one with nature, and given that we don’t have much time. It is already too late! Can you imagine the backlash if China set out to cull entire species and globally farm the oceans. Hell you can’t even kill a whale in peace these days.

Maybe if some advanced alien species is keeping tabs they will note that we almost made it. Then again we never even got close.

If we ever did exceed our resources and everyone started to starve etc. We may well see natural selection bring about a miniature human (Small like a mouse), maybe our destiny would be the same as the ant. Is that better than just not existing at all!

Then again if we played our cards right there is no reason humankind would not be masters of space and time. Masters of the universe for real! We are speaking about vast time frames. How long would it take to reach a population of a trillion people? I dunno, but I bet it would take a million years or more.

Who really knows what the future has in store? I know I dont. It is neat to think about though.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by Donkey_Dean]

reply to post by Donkey_Dean


You know I actually liked your idea of creating a population of trillions.

For some reason the Foundation series came to mind.

There is no way anyone can put down a number of our maximum sustainable population. The science is not there yet. We have not reached our limit yet.

I say we go for it. Trillions sound good to me.

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by Eight
Global warming alarmist all have a fundamental problem, their wrong, because their conclusions are based on junk science. I honestly don't know why people keep listening to this scientist when it is a know fact that scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming.

In my opinion these scientist are nothing more than scam artists because they share data with each to see how they can massage the data to meet a preconceived conclusion, then hide it from "real" scientists that are skeptical.

Words fail me. How you have managed to twist a screw up by a handful of political and NOT scientific individuals as "proof" of fabrication by tens of thousands of dedicated scientific professionals is quite simply obscene.

Shame on you all.

This world is screwed because of narrow minded dishonest people like you.

PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES. SOME ADMIT TO THEM (as the UN/IPCC clearly is doing so otherwise you would not know about it DUH let me repeat for the skeptics with an IQ < 10 DUH DUH DUH).

You are missing one glaring point, no one in power is listening to the real scientists. If they were; we would not be on the way to pledge 100 billion a year to other less developed countries that say that we are at fault.

Do you really want to know what effect climate change?

www.google.com...
[edit on 18-1-2010 by Eight]

[edit on 18-1-2010 by Eight]

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean

I think the oceans should be farmed on a scale that would require the management of C02 levels in our atmosphere.

1. Fertilize the oceans and create plankton blooms on unheard of scales.
2. Kill off the predators that feed on the creatures that feed on the plankton. Also dispose of any undesirable species.
3. Harvest both the plankton and the increased bio mass for conversion into oil.

Using a method like this we could also feed the entire population of earth easily. We have the technology to put this type of thing into practice, and the knowledge we would gain would allow for better understanding and management of our biosphere.
............

If you kill off predators of plankton then we will be getting more toxic blooms of plankton than we have been getting. Also you will be killing mammals such as whales. Whales feed off plankton. If you kill off the predators that eat the animals, and bacteria that feed of plankton you will essentially destroy the entire ocean.

This is a really bad idea.

What is your need to "scrub off CO2" from the atmsphere? because that is what you are trying to do with this little experiment you didn't think through.

Why can't you just leave nature do it's thing instead of trying to change it?

There is no need to "farm the oceans at large scale"... If we leave alone CO2 levels to keep increasing we will get more harvests on land...

There is more than enough food in the world to feed off all people. The problem is that the Socialist elites have a similar plan to yours but instead what they want to do is depopulate the Earth.

You might be trying to help, but your plan will only make things worse.

We shouldn't be trying to be meddling with nature in that way, nor any other way.



[edit on 18-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Poppycock! We replace the predators with the harvest. You miss the point completely. The point is to manage the oceans for the sole benifit of mankind, pristine ecosystems be damned. The oceans are screwed with or without us friend.

Nature left to itself will self destruct 100% guaranteed. That’s the point, in order for mankind to stand the test of time only one option is valid and it involves the complete management of our biosphere. Certainly we should not run out and start tearing down the balances but we must explore the notion or face certain extinction. It doesn’t take a real deep thinker to realize this. I didn’t make it up, it’s just how it is.

Your attitude is suicidal because although Earth supports human life today it will not in the future. Only through the control of the critical natural systems, and the technology to manage global temperatures can we hope to endure. Humankind will be very lucky to survive another 10,000 years if we continue the natural order approach. We can however master our environment and set our own term of survival.

I never thought that my ocean farming idea was a cure all, it was more to show a point of view. Which says we can endure, but most all species will fall in the process, and that these species are doomed anyway etc. "Survival and humanity are complete opposites!"

Dooming mankind for this doomed environment is a bad idea!

If we killed ourselves in the process at least we will have tried to survive. If nothing else we will have created a window for diversity in future species. We should take baby steps and only exploit for what we need. As the population increases our exploitation will as well. One would hope our technology would curtail our exploitation leading to a completely managed biosphere and a population in the multi trillions in the far far future. This large population will require resources beyond those found on Earth and even in our galaxy thereby leading us to the stars and a perpetual existence.

In your mind how would humankind survive the test of time? I would love to hear other ideas!

I agree that AGW is a non issue. A warmer world rich in C02 is just what the doctor ordered actually. I speak of vast time frames and of human existence beyond the Earths ability to support life. It’s clear that with enough C02 temps will rise, but it’s not really clear how much is enough to raise temps to runaway levels. I suspect that there is not enough C02 on Earth to kill the planet so to speak so even if we dumped all of the C02 into the atmosphere (Which is not possible by the way) we face only an adaptive situation. It is other species that will bear the brunt of AGW, and that’s what the real fuss is about. I say screw em they are doomed anyhow.

You can’t make an amulet without breaking a few eggs.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by Donkey_Dean]

reply to post by Donkey_Dean


While global warming is a bad hoax, and the people who concocted it will likely never get punished, we DO NEED to curtail soil, air and water pollution from dangerous chemicals that companies think is ok to do.

Not only are humans dying prematurely but it is also causing problems for animals and plants. We are causing much more damage than is necessary, all so companies increase their bottom line and consumers save a buck. I don't think we need to save a buck, we need to save the enviroment.

And as for a trillion population on earth that is ridiculous given we can't even manage 8 billion now. People are irresponsible, companies are irresponsible and most of all governments are irresponsible.

Originally posted by ANNED
It does not mater that the Himalayan glaciers are not melting down.

The story is now out there and the AGW people will keep quoting it forever.

I will bet that someone will quote they are melting here at ATS within 6 months because they never read this thread or heard of the story.

The AGW people know the public is stupid and will repeat any of there fake data forever as truth.

And anotherone falls for the disinformation campaign by industry!!

Glaciers ARE melting!!

Also, for those who think it's all a hoax, watch this:



[edit on 20-1-2010 by MrXYZ]

[edit on 20-1-2010 by MrXYZ]

reply to post by MrXYZ


Carbon dioxide is not a problem, whereas carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide are. Given that the IPCC is barking up the wrong tree and using it as an excuse to raise taxes, one can only conclude that indeed it is a hoax. Plain and simple!

Nevermind the fact that countries are turning a blind-eye towards companies dumping raw or partially treated sewage; turning a blind-eye towards cheap, non-enviromentally friendly pesticides and/or fertilisers; not encouraging enough plastic/glass/metal recycling; burying garbage rather than burning it; not doing away with nuclear energy once and for all; etc....etc..etc

Don't be a hypocrite because god hates hypocrites even more than greedy&selfish people! You guys/gals will be lucky by not going to jail where you belong, so please don't irritate us more.

No worries, just keep on buying the disinformation interest groups secretly (or not even so secretly) funded by the oil industry spoon feed you

So the prediction of when the Himalayans will melt is not accurate, it doesn't change the fact that the Himalayan glaciers are melting at an astounding rate.

www.guardian.co.uk...

The World Glacier Monitoring Service shows a similar picture. In a 2005 survey of 442 glaciers, 398 - or 90% - were retreating, 18 were stationary and 26 were advancing.

Thompson, who has been studying glaciers in the Andes for more than 30 years, said he had watched the loss in his own lifetime. A number of the region's glaciers have disappeared. Venezuela, which had six glaciers when he first began as a graduate student in the early 1970s, now has only two small ice masses which Thompson thought would be gone within ten years. An Andean glacier that had been melting at a pace of six meters a year 40 years ago is now disappearing at a rate of 60 meters a year, he said.

You can argue about the cause of global warming, but denying that it is happening is simply allowing yourself to become a tool of the PTB, specifically the oil companies.

reply to post by poet1b


Dont be so sure!
www.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by poet1b

 

Dont be so sure!
www.foxnews.com...

Nah, I think he's correct to believe in global warming. Especially considering that even the guy quoted in the FOX "News" article (Prof. Mojib Latif) believes in it

"If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily."

Source

Funny how Fox New's true agenda shines through with this disclaimer at the end of the source you quoted

Editor's note: An earlier version of this article erroneously reported that the NSIDC reports concluded that the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles.

Just look at countries like Bangladesh where the floods get worse every day, or Greenland, where a large part of the glaciers disapeared. There a ton of more examples...like the Maldives.

Now if you say "what do I care, it's not happening in the USA"...just go visit Glacier National Park and look at pictures taken 20yrs ago and compare them to today. 100 years ago, that National Park had 150 (!!!) glaciers, now there's only 27 left, and they predict they'll be gone by 2030.

But keep on believing what the oil companies and their funded interest groups tell you...

[edit on 21-1-2010 by MrXYZ]

[edit on 21-1-2010 by MrXYZ]

This shows just what a huge pile sh*t Global Warming is! It's a religion to it's deluded true believers however!

Don't be a hypocrite because god hates hypocrites even more than greedy&selfish people! You guys/gals will be lucky by not going to jail where you belong, so please don't irritate us more.

Leave God out of this, and don't come here spewing bull# without any sources if you have no clue about what's going on. You are a mere puppet of industry funded interest groups.

Dunno about you, but I prefer not being a puppet...

Posting sources and evidence beats spewing unproven crap those interest groups spoon feed you. THINK for yourself, look at the evidence, and for an opinion based on that evidence instead of repeating baseless slogans of the people who obviously want to limit any restrictions on polluting and destroying our planet due to greed!

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
This shows just what a huge pile sh*t Global Warming is! It's a religion to it's deluded true believers however!

READ the evidence that was posted and think for a change...trust me, it won't hurt as badly as you think. And you might ascened from being a puppet of the industry to someone who thinks rationally

Fox News are stating the same bull# as you, when even the main guy they quote in their article believes in global warming!!

[edit on 21-1-2010 by MrXYZ]

reply to post by MrXYZ


Let it warm! It is better for humanity.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Donkey_Dean]

reply to post by MrXYZ



Some Scientists have said a lot of that info is falcified.


[edit on 21-1-2010 by BigDaveJr]

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Let it warm! It is better for humanity.

I'm sure the people who'll lose their homes in the Maldives or Bangladesh agree with you

People at ATS are expected to look at evidence and prove their statements instead of making ignorant, stupid statements without backup. But I guess playing ignorant and stupid is easier