Quote from Shotglass :

you do realize that a lion share of africas agricultural and politcal problems are a direct result of european stupidity during colinization dont you ?

I don't care if it is africa or some other country, also I don't care what is the reason to their problems, if land can't support that much life, then there must be too many people, it does not matter that if it would be Finland in that matter. Our food production is quite limited because of winter and I would be willing to think that here is also too much people, instead of food help, we just buy food from other places.

BlueFlame is very wrong as he is quite often, human being is what he is by his actions not by his birth place, so I very much get annoyed such racists comments BlueFlame says, it shows lack of intelligence and lack of capability of thinking, imo.

Some may think that there is no difference as I'm saying that food help should not continued, but at least I don't feel such way, I don't have nothing against them, also it makes me sad that people must die because of hunger, only even partly humane solution would be stop getting more people, it would help to hunger problem, also it would help to enviroment problem, but as long as help is given, help is taken and wheel of problems will rotate.

Quote from JTbo :

...

however the problems nowerdays are of a global nature and you will undoubtedly be aware that most of the so called 1st world has a rather vast oversupply of food
its not a problem of them having too many people its a problem of distribution

and i dont see how countries matter much in a world that prides itself for its move torwards globalisation

Quote from Shotglass :

however the problems nowerdays are of a global nature and you will undoubtedly be aware that most of the so called 1st world has a rather vast oversupply of food
its not a problem of them having too many people its a problem of distribution

and i dont see how countries matter much in a world that prides itself for its move torwards globalisation

We can't make weather and land to be part of globalization, that spoils whole idea of even food supplies or people over whole planet, some areas can support more people and some less.

However some globalization supporters seem to think one rules work for whole world, but here north it is totally different world that you there south. I really don't like from globalization, it creates more problem that tries to solve, imo.

Quote from JTbo :

We can't make weather and land to be part of globalization, that spoils whole idea of even food supplies or people over whole planet, some areas can support more people and some less.

However some globalization supporters seem to think one rules work for whole world, but here north it is totally different world that you there south. I really don't like from globalization, it creates more problem that tries to solve, imo.

the same rules for everyone is imho the only solution to globalisation in fact i personally believe that youll find most problems we have with it atm stem from this not being the case ... ie if there was a global minimum wage at least half of the arguments against it would be gone instantly

also following your logic of not distributing things all across the planet finnland would have a lot less citizens since as you pointed out it cant supply tit current population with its own produce and noone in germany could afford a table as most of the country has be deforested hundreds of years ago

the entire idea is to share and distribute globally

I think we must agree to disagree Shotglass, as I'm pretty lot against globalization because I feel that world is too different to share same rules everywhere, I think that even souther part of our country should have different rules than northern part, specially for traffic as those are two different worlds.

Also I see that to help enviroment we should have only that amount of people in place X that place X can support, but that is where our point of views differ a lot

Quote from wien :

Feel free, but don't expect me to shut up and like it. The problem I have with you not liking Africans is that since you obviously haven't met them all, you're using some stereotype you've developed and applying those traits to an entire group of people. Personally I like to withhold judgment until I've met someone.

You can't say that, its stupid to think All people from the UK are smart, and All people from Scandinavia, are not, its the other way around, its these 'obvious things' that people pass because they don't want to be 'judgemental' ALL germans, are Efficient at stuff, French have GREAT Fashion sense, the Brits are just gimps, the Yanks need to think Small for once, and the Italians are too pretty to think about anything else other than their cosmetic materials. EACH country has a personality trait, which goes on to 70% of the Population at LEAST, but i guess heavy Immigration has changed that, well for some Anyway, Living in Norway i doubt you know what it is like to see a whole road that makes you think you drove over the Pakistani border They aren't maybe KNOWINGLY taking over, but thats whats happening, you sit there trying to be PC, when you have never seen violence because your country is too good to harbour crime...

On to GW. oh it looks like your Trusted Scientists are wrong, they said the Baiji Dolphin was extinct, wonder what else they are wrong about. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6969226.stm

Quote from BlueFlame :

On to GW. oh it looks like your Trusted Scientists are wrong, they said the Baiji Dolphin was extinct, wonder what else they are wrong about. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6969226.stm

oh so a single specimen of a species that not too long ago had a population in the thousands is obviosuly proof that the species isnt currently going extinct right ?

on the risk of getting a bob/sam slap for this ... christ you must be one of the most stupid persons ive ever had the displeasure speaking to

Quote from Shotglass :

oh so a single specimen of a species that not too long ago had a population in the thousands is obviosuly proof that the species isnt currently going extinct right ?

on the risk of getting a bob/sam slap for this ... christ you must be one of the most stupid persons ive ever had the displeasure speaking to

IT SAYS, SCIENTISTS SAID IT WAS EXTINCT, ARE YOU BLIND!?

Quote :

Scientists had recently declared that the baiji was probably extinct.

Its got nothing to do with the Situation now, thats the POINT, they were WRONG. The very same people who you follow for the theorys of the GW

Quote from BlueFlame :

IT SAYS, SCIENTISTS SAID IT WAS EXTINCT, ARE YOU BLIND!?

which bit of the word "probably" is it that you cant get into your thick head ?

Quote from BlueFlame :

Its got nothing to do with the Situation now, thats the POINT, they were WRONG. The very same people who you follow for the theorys of the GW

I'm sorry, but I really have to get this off my chest:

You really do have an arrogant, racist, immature, pig-ignorant view of the world.

Do you even understand what is meant by the word 'scientist'?

Can you even start to appreciate how shallow your argument is?

Some scientists declared this animal was 'probably' extinct. 'Probably'. Look it up. I'll wait.

Now, the fact that this dolphin has been sighted may mean the scientists concerned were 'wrong' in this instance (to an extent). It certainly does not mean 'ALL' scientists are wrong. The twisted logic you continually employ only serves to expose your complete inability to formulate a coherent string of thoughts.

BTW, you do realise that the scientists who announced the probable extinction of this dolphin are probably not the same scientists who research global warming.

You do...

Don't you?

Quote from Shotglass :

which bit of the word "probably" is it that you cant get into your thick head ?

Hmm, proving the Scientists aren't sure about ANYTHING.

Scientists in Biology, are obviously as good as those in Geography and Physics in what they do.

i give up ... if id continue id risk killing myself to make the stupidity stop

Quote from Shotglass :

i give up ... if id continue id risk killing myself to make the stupidity stop

Oh , go home and Listen to Death Metal whilst writing Poetry, we all know thats what you do.

I promised myself to withdraw from this thread. But your argument just got delusional on a whole new level.

Firstly: you're wrong about the ice melting. Look up the respective densities of ice and water - they're almost identical (there's only a difference in the fourth significant figure). They can practically be considered the same. What this shows is that when the part of ice that's above water melts, the surface of the water will rise. Again, do the experiment, record the data, prove me wrong if you want to. As it stands, I've provided accurate data and you've given nothing so on that basis, I win this point. I won't do the hard work for you and prove myself wrong.

Some fields in science are more advanced than others - some are still developing. Biologists clearly don't know about every living animal of every species. Saying that a certain animal is probably extinct is on the basis of educated guesswork, not actual experiments, formulas and so on.

Scientists have always gotten things wrong here and there and will continue to get things wrong. Newton, as right as he was, was proven wrong by Einstein on all fronts. Does this mean that Newton did not contribute to science? Certainly not. His equations and laws were just one step towards an accurate understanding of the world. The remarkable accuracy with which this is done today is a testament to the success of science.

Furthermore, Stephen Hawking says in A Brief History of Time - You can never prove a theory right, it can only stand the test of experiment and if it predicts the outcome of experiments accurately, then it's a good theory. However, you can prove a theory wrong.

Just because you cannot prove a theory right, does that mean science is useless? Hell no. Look at where it's gotten us.

If scientists tell you that continuing to do a certain activity is likely to cause the eventual destruction of our species, you should listen to them until someone actually proves them wrong because that's not something that should be gambled with.

This is the last thing I will post in this thread, directed at BlueFlame anyway, until he proves me wrong about ice melting and rising the surface of water.

I think that one problem people are having with science is that they think it tells one absolute truth, which is not the case at all.

Science is way to explain things in light what we currently know, thus when our knowledge changes explanation changes, there is no big truth really behind anything.

However, I'm afraid that Blueflame might not understand it this way either as that would require bit of thinking, bit of work, learning something, which he certainly has shown not willing to do.

If there is two mans, one is sticking to his opinions no matter what and another willing to accept new things to be part of his opinions, now weather broadcast has been sunny, dark clouds emerge to sky and sound of thunder is heard from distance.
At this phase man willing to accept new information to be part of his view is getting inside of house, however other man sits on rock and mumbles it is sunny, no matter what it is sunny, bit later on lightning strikes a rock, unfortainly this man was still sitting on rock.

Now which one of them was a stupid man?

Quote from JTbo :

I think that one problem people are having with science is that they think it tells one absolute truth, which is not the case at all.

Science is way to explain things in light what we currently know, thus when our knowledge changes explanation changes, there is no big truth really behind anything.

However, I'm afraid that Blueflame might not understand it this way either as that would require bit of thinking, bit of work, learning something, which he certainly has shown not willing to do.

If there is two mans, one is sticking to his opinions no matter what and another willing to accept new things to be part of his opinions, now weather broadcast has been sunny, dark clouds emerge to sky and sound of thunder is heard from distance.
At this phase man willing to accept new information to be part of his view is getting inside of house, however other man sits on rock and mumbles it is sunny, no matter what it is sunny, bit later on lightning strikes a rock, unfortainly this man was still sitting on rock.

Now which one of them was a stupid man?

I agree with the first 2 paragraphs JTbo
but..

The one who went inside because of rain, i wanted fun outside, and dammit, im gonna have it no matter what, your just a bunch of folders, and i thought I was lazy. Oh, ill just take it bent over shall i, no, stand up like a man, your beliefs are you as a person, if your willing to change them easily your not a person at all

Well, ill go indepth

Quote from axus :

Some fields in science are more advanced than others - some are still developing. Biologists clearly don't know about every living animal of every species. Saying that a certain animal is probably extinct is on the basis of educated guesswork, not actual experiments, formulas and so on.

Quote :

hmm, so Geographists know every mountain? no. Science is inaccurate to talk about the world as a whole. Which is what you PERSISTANTLY keep denying

Scientists have always gotten things wrong here and there and will continue to get things wrong. Newton, as right as he was, was proven wrong by Einstein on all fronts. Does this mean that Newton did not contribute to science? Certainly not.

Quote :

That will be your 'gw creating scientists then'

His equations and laws were just one step towards an accurate understanding of the world. The remarkable accuracy with which this is done today is a testament to the success of science.

Furthermore, Stephen Hawking says in A Brief History of Time - You can never prove a theory right, it can only stand the test of experiment and if it predicts the outcome of experiments accurately, then it's a good theory. However, you can prove a theory wrong.

Just because you cannot prove a theory right, does that mean science is useless? Hell no. Look at where it's gotten us.

Quote :

Agreed

If scientists tell you that continuing to do a certain activity is likely to cause the eventual destruction of our species, you should listen to them until someone actually proves them wrong because that's not something that should be gambled with.

Quote :

If you panic about the fact you didn't record Bruce Forsyths Price Is Right, of course you will fold to this suggestion.

I love the way people say I'm Uneducated of course, they could just be stating I am not educated to GW but I do NOT speak like a retard and I very skilled in alot of things I do. No, playing PC games is NOT one of them, nor is forum posting. If you get so Angry that im wrong, why bother posting in thinking Im not going to sit here and not reply to being called stupid?

The personality of all GW'ers on this forum, seems to be exactly the same, you all intend on calling me Stupid, if you care so much about the World, surely you will approach non GW'ers in a friendly way, and try to Coax them onto the GW flamebus rather than call them stupid, so they are forced to think all GW'ers are retards themselves, because your not just trying to prove my Idea's are wrong .. no no. Your dishing out insults, trying to encourage people who are just browsing through, that I am the one to be flamed, and being the pathetic Humans you are, you all want to join in.

The worst thing is, your panicking, i think its funny, if GW is to happen, what ever you do now, is probobly just screwing things up anyway. Tell me, How was the world created?

Quote from BlueFlame :

I agree with the first 2 paragraphs JTbo
but..

The one who went inside because of rain, i wanted fun outside, and dammit, im gonna have it no matter what, your just a bunch of folders, and i thought I was lazy. Oh, ill just take it bent over shall i, no, stand up like a man, your beliefs are you as a person, if your willing to change them easily your not a person at all

Stubborn I think is the word, it is sometimes good feature, but can do lot of harm, it has not much to do with intelligence as more intelligence tends to make individual less stubborn for some reason.

If you study some old wisdoms there you find stories with among lines of bending is wiser than being stubborn and crack, they are not very wrong I'm afraid.

What comes to character and what person is, well you don't need to be stubborn to have certain views of life, you can believe some things and not to believe to some, you don't need to be less BlueFlame to accept different things to be part of your opinions, as that is called growing and getting wiser.

It is not your believings why many think you are not quite err bright, it is your way to keep sticking against evidence and just saying something without something to back up your opinions, what generally is considered intelligent is opposite of stubborn and feelings.

Quote from Forrest Gump :

Stupid is as Stupid does.

I honestly don't think we're going to make progress further than we have. There's certainly a lot to think about in the first few pages, and lots of discourse to help anyone draw some preliminary conclusions about the future of our planet, and our role in that future.

We can't be descending into personal abuse and attacks, so I thought it would be best to stop now, before it properly gets going that way.. and that's the only way I can see the thread going if it's left to its own devices. The actual debate on global warming ended a page or 2 back.