The latest GEO report is pretty grim. The word is that we need to stop pouring carbon into the sky, to the tune of 70-80% reductions, as of now, or irreversible changes in the environment will be reached.
We haven't, since Kyoto, done anything realistic about even levelling off, instead every country has taken note of the meeting, marched out of the conference room and carried on as usual, while making various noises about the "problem" the world faces.

But there isn't just one problem, there's a whole heap of problems, or if there is just one, it's us.
Or it's our ability to exploit the environment, which doesn't seem to include the ability to preserve it. Or we think we can keep using everything at an increasing rate, like forever, there is no limit to human growth - planet Earth isn't going to hold us back, dam the torpedoes and more coal on the bunkers.

I don't personally believe anything is going to extricate us from the feedback that our rampant success will be delivering, sort of in fits and starts, over the coming decades. We won't do anything because:

1) It's too late anyway, so it doesn't matter. We can't stop digging under the big rock, because there's something we need to dig up, we'll all starve, the economy will go into recession, we won't be able to afford that house in the Seychelles, etc etc.

2) We're at least 30 years too late, in terms of the needed public inertia - if we had been as aware globally, back then as today, we might have a real chance of not plowing into that iceberg up ahead. We know we need to turn the ship, but we can't damp down the boilers, because the first-class guests want to get there on time. It's important to their economic circumstances - we can't have any of this slowing down business.

3) About half the world's population probably hasn't heard of Kyoto or the IPCC. The half that has maybe thinks about it now and then, but they're all still driving around. We really aren't doing a thing - installing low-power bulbs is like changing the deck chairs around, in terms of actual effect on energy use.

So, how long 'til the boat tips over, or the rock starts rolling down the big hill, or we hit the iceberg, you think?

One answer...

http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/

another....

http://www.cyclonepower.com/

OK, so you're saying these are two things that might help us turn the tide, or you think technology is going to replace the oil industry, and we're going to drive hydrogen-powered cars?

Carbon dioxide is GOOD for the environment.

Plants need it for photosynthesis and of course we all know photosynthesis is necessary in order to breathe oxygen.

Carbon dioxide was here before the first car was made and it will be here long after the last car is gone.

Less than 1% of CO2 is man made.

I wish someone would pay me to write a bullshit report. At least it would have a few scientific thoughts in it.

The latest GEO report is pretty grim. The word is that we need to stop pouring carbon into the sky, to the tune of 70-80% reductions, as of now, or irreversible changes in the environment will be reached.
We haven't, since Kyoto, done anything realistic about even levelling off, instead every country has taken note of the meeting, marched out of the conference room and carried on as usual, while making various noises about the "problem" the world faces.

But there isn't just one problem, there's a whole heap of problems, or if there is just one, it's us.
Or it's our ability to exploit the environment, which doesn't seem to include the ability to preserve it. Or we think we can keep using everything at an increasing rate, like forever, there is no limit to human growth - planet Earth isn't going to hold us back, dam the torpedoes and more coal on the bunkers.

I don't personally believe anything is going to extricate us from the feedback that our rampant success will be delivering, sort of in fits and starts, over the coming decades. We won't do anything because:

1) It's too late anyway, so it doesn't matter. We can't stop digging under the big rock, because there's something we need to dig up, we'll all starve, the economy will go into recession, we won't be able to afford that house in the Seychelles, etc etc.

2) We're at least 30 years too late, in terms of the needed public inertia - if we had been as aware globally, back then as today, we might have a real chance of not plowing into that iceberg up ahead. We know we need to turn the ship, but we can't damp down the boilers, because the first-class guests want to get there on time. It's important to their economic circumstances - we can't have any of this slowing down business.

3) About half the world's population probably hasn't heard of Kyoto or the IPCC. The half that has maybe thinks about it now and then, but they're all still driving around. We really aren't doing a thing - installing low-power bulbs is like changing the deck chairs around, in terms of actual effect on energy use.

So, how long 'til the boat tips over, or the rock starts rolling down the big hill, or we hit the iceberg, you think?

I agree.

I don't know how long, but I do know the only thing that could save the environment is to get rid of at least 90% of the human population.
Better still, get rid of them all.

Carbon dioxide is GOOD for the environment.

Plants need it for photosynthesis and of course we all know photosynthesis is necessary in order to breathe oxygen.

Carbon dioxide was here before the first car was made and it will be here long after the last car is gone.

Less than 1% of CO2 is man made.

I wish someone would pay me to write a bullshit report. At least it would have a few scientific thoughts in it.

lol

George Carlin's take on this ...

http://www.jibjab.com/view/122257

Enjoy

I, for one, welcome our new carbon dioxide breathing overlords.

The word is that we need to stop pouring carbon into the sky, to the tune of 70-80% reductions, as of now, or irreversible changes in the environment will be reached.
How long until we're so far past the "tipping point" that people stop bitching about it? Until we've released so much carbon for so long without apparent ill effect that the environmental alarmists will admit that the sky isn't falling?

I agree.
I don't know how long, but I do know the only thing that could save the environment is to get rid of at least 90% of the human population.
Better still, get rid of them all.
This is the kind of statement that, for me, pretty much defines evil. It seems to be quite pervasive throughout the environmental movement. You openly wish for the death of every man, woman and child on earth and then you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

Be happy no one takes you seriously. Because, if we did, we'd lock you up in prison before you did something to bring about your desire for the extermination of the human race.

If you want anyone to listen to you, you'd be much better served to keep your dreams of genocide to yourself.

This is the kind of statement that, for me, pretty much defines evil. It seems to be quite pervasive throughout the environmental movement. You openly wish for the death of every man, woman and child on earth and then you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

Be happy no one takes you seriously. Because, if we did, we'd lock you up in prison before you did something to bring about your desire for the extermination of the human race.

If you want anyone to listen to you, you'd be much better served to keep your dreams of genocide to yourself.

According to the Georgia Guidestones, the first commandment is to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." Eerie, isn't it? I wonder how that goal is to be achieved. What's even weirder is that the stone tablets were financed by a mysterious man who went by the pseudonym, "Mr. R. C. Christian".

This is the kind of statement that, for me, pretty much defines evil. It seems to be quite pervasive throughout the environmental movement. You openly wish for the death of every man, woman and child on earth and then you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

Be happy no one takes you seriously. Because, if we did, we'd lock you up in prison before you did something to bring about your desire for the extermination of the human race.

If you want anyone to listen to you, you'd be much better served to keep your dreams of genocide to yourself.

I don't want it, and it is quite unrealistic that anything of the sort will ever happen.
I just think it would be the only solution to the problem.
Needless to say I have given up hope.. we're doomed.
Yes 'we', destruction of the environment eventually spells the destruction of the human race.

Edit:
I don't want it, but I would do it if given the power.
I rather sacrifice one so the rest can live, than to do nothing and let all die.

Geez Enmos, can you imagine turning to your mother and saying to her face, "Mom, I've been given the power to kill every human on Earth, including you and me, and I'm going to do it"?

Geez Enmos, can you imagine turning to your mother and saying to her face, "Mom, I've been given the power to kill every human on Earth, including you and me, and I'm going to do it"?

Yes. Sorry, I must be evil.
But it will never happen :p

I can whip up an analogy if you want..

Typical atheist's mindset.

Typical atheist's mindset.

I suspect this is not the case.

I certainly hope not.

I certainly hope not.

Of course..

Look, I love my life and my family and friends.
I don't want me or any of them to die..

According to the Georgia Guidestones, the first commandment is to "maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." Eerie, isn't it? I wonder how that goal is to be achieved. What's even weirder is that the stone tablets were financed by a mysterious man who went by the pseudonym, "Mr. R. C. Christian".
Thanks for pointing out the Georgia Guidestones.
http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/gg3.gif
I'd never heard of them. As I said, these ideas are pervasive throughout the environmental movement.

Georgia Guidestones? lol...some new heretic church

Of course..

Look, I love my life and my family and friends.
I don't want me or any of them to die..
But you just said that, if given the power, you would kill every man, woman, and child on earth. That is morally reprehensible, it is selfish, it is evil. Even Hitler only wanted to kill the Jews, you'd kill us all.

But you just said that, if given the power, you would kill every man, woman, and child on earth. That is morally reprehensible, it is selfish, it is evil. Even Hitler only wanted to kill the Jews, you'd kill us all.

Correct. But it's strictly hypothetical.
Ever heard of sacrificing one for the good of the many ?

Correct. But it's strictly hypothetical.
Ever heard of sacrificing one for the good of the many ?
Sure, but you'd sacrifice everyone for no one!
Geez Enmos, can you imagine turning to your mother and saying to her face, "Mom, I've been given the power to kill every human on Earth, including you and me, and I'm going to do it"?
Yes. Sorry, I must be evil.
But it will never happen :p
I can whip up an analogy if you want..So it's only your lack of power that preventa you from committing the greatest atrocity ever imagined? And you think using an emoticon with a smiley face mitigates the immorality of such a desire?

Enmos...we humans see you as a threat to us...we are the supreme rulers of this universe, your ambitions are against our desires...

Sure, but you'd sacrifice everyone for no one!
Huh ? :bugeye:

So it's only your lack of power that preventa you from committing the greatest atrocity ever imagined?
I notice you are getting emotional.. ?
Maybe I can't do when it really comes to it.
I would happily embrace any scenario that avoids removing humans.

And you think using an emoticon with a smiley face mitigates the immorality of such a desire?
Necessary evil ?

Less than 1% of CO2 is man made. As simply correcting this, including linking to the correct figures etc, has proven fruitless, we must continue to swat it on each individual appearance.

According to the people who measure such things, a little less than 40% of the CO2 in the air over your head at the moment was generated by fossil fuel combustion.

Enmos...we humans see you as a threat to us...we are the supreme rulers of this universe, your ambitions are against our desires...
And ? They are not my desires.

Typical atheist's mindset.

Typical ignorant response.

Typical ignorant response.

Typical rhetorical remark.

Typical rhetorical remark.

Typical draqon.

Enmos: What I think is so disturbing to the rest of us is where you're placing your priorities. Generally speaking, it's humans first, everything else later. ie. if you had to choose between saving every animal within 10 acres of a forest and saving a human, which would you do?

What I think is so disturbing to the rest of us is where you're placing your priorities. Generally speaking, it's humans first, everything else later.
What if 'humans first' means death to all, including humans ?
Wouldn't it then make sense to save 'everything else' ?

ie. if you had to choose between saving every animal within 10 acres of a forest and saving a human, which would you do?
Isolated event ? Saving the human.
Not saving the human would have no impact whatsoever.

Enmos if you had 100 baby mice and one human...but could only save either 100 mice or one human...who would you save?

Enmos if you had 100 baby mice and one human...but could only save either 100 mice or one human...who would you save?

Same answer as above. It's all or nothing.. well almost all would suffice I think.

Same answer as above. It's all or nothing.. well almost all would suffice I think.

so does that mean you would let 100 baby mice to die? just because of one human? :bugeye:

so does that mean you would let 100 baby mice to die? just because of one human? :bugeye:

Yes, with pain in my heart.. but yes.

What if 'humans first' means death to all, including humans ?
Wouldn't it then make sense to save 'everything else' ?

No, or at least not in my view. Even after we're gone, it's not like life won't exist on the planet.

No, or at least not in my view. Even after we're gone, it's not like life won't exist on the planet.

But at current pace all ecosystems would be utterly destroyed.
There just too many humans, we are already in the midst of a mass extinction.

There is always SPACE!

http://orbitingfrog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bion.jpg

Maybe it would be more 'acceptable' if you view it like this:

Would you die for your loved one if you knew it would save her ?

Maybe it would be more 'acceptable' if you view it like this:

Would you die for your loved one if you knew it would save her ?

you answer that.

ok Enmos, you are walking in a Netherlands park and then after a while you notice a deer running to you, its' leg is broken, you fix it and notice a tire mark on it, knowing that an evil human did it...you feed the deer, care for it, the deer heals very well...you get very close with the deer, as to let it inside your house.

But then one day you are in middle of intersection and there are two speeding cars racing against each other on two sides against the traffic light...

there is your deer who you love and care so much in middle of intersection and there is a man walking with his stick, you have time to save either the deer or the man...

who do you save?

ok Enmos, you are walking in a Netherlands park and then after a while you notice a deer running to you, its' leg is broken, you fix it and notice a tire mark on it, knowing that an evil human did it...you feed the deer, care for it, the deer heals very well...you get very close with the deer, as to let it inside your house.

But then one day you are in middle of intersection and there are two speeding cars racing against each other on two sides against the traffic light...

there is your deer who you love and care so much in middle of intersection and there is a man walking with his stick, you have time to save either the deer or the man...

who do you save?

Probably the human. But i wouldn't take the deer into my house, and get attached to it. Wild animals belong in the wild.

Enmos you are just trying to be accepted in our human-preference ideologies...because you are afraid or retribution from us humans, supreme rulers of the universe.

Enmos you are just trying to be accepted in our human-preference ideologies...because you are afraid or retribution from us humans, supreme rulers of the universe.

I admit that part of my reasons for saving the man instead of the deer would be law and what other humans would think of me.
But most of all, I am hardwired to look out for my own species more that for other species.

But most of all, I am hardwired to look out for my own species more that for other species.

....yeaahhh, thats not what you were saying just not long ago :rolleyes:

....yeaahhh, thats not what you were saying just not long ago :rolleyes:

I'm trying to overcome my innate irrationalities :p

You guys look like you're getting lost in a metaphorical hypothetical moralistic forest of some kind.

All this talk about evil isn't going to stop the planet from wiping out half the human population. How evil is that?
Sounds "bad" to me, at least for the ones who get buried or drowned or dehydrated or whatever.

You guys look like you're getting lost in a metaphorical hypothetical moralistic forest of some kind.

All this talk about evil isn't going to stop the planet from wiping out half the human population. How evil is that?
Sounds "bad" to me, at least for the ones who get buried or drowned or dehydrated or whatever.

I agree, again. Although, it's not really the planet doing that, it's us.
How come we agree on things all of a sudden ? lol

What if 'humans first' means death to all, including humans ?
Wouldn't it then make sense to save 'everything else' ?
Your thinking is seriously flawed. The scenario you describe could never occur. If humans fuck up the planet badly enough, they may well fuck themselves over and, perhaps, whatever species we happen to be sharing the earth with at the time. But, ultimately, the earth will regenerate itself as it has from previous mass extinctions.

So the idea of killing all the humans to save the planet is utterly absurd and, well, evil. Life will continue on the earth no matter what we do. We ourselves may or may not continue; but the earth can take care of itself, it does not require your genocidal protection.

So, there's nothing evil about the planet "getting rid of" humans, but humans doing it to themselves is evil?

The defining of "evil" is a survival tactic. There really isn't any such thing.

So, there's nothing evil about the planet "getting rid of" humans, but humans doing it to themselves is evil?

The defining of "evil" is a survival tactic. There really isn't any such thing.The planet is not conscious. It has no will. Therefore it can be neither good nor evil. Should mankind go extinct, it wouldn't be due to the good or evil desires of the earth itself.

Humans, on the other hand, do have will. They are conscious. They are responsible for their actions and can choose good or evil.

Perhaps you lack the moral courage to define anything as "good or evil"; but I'll go out on a limb and say a wish for the death of all humans is evil.

Ok, so instead of a wish for the death of all humans, how about a prediction that will mean something close to: "the death of all humans", or at best a serious change in our circumstances, and unavoidable conflict over dwindling resources?

What if someone says: "this is a warning", or: "guess what? The Earth doesn't really give a flying fart about you guys", say.

I mean, like how other animals in a similar predicament end up, just for argument's sake.

Ok, so instead of a wish for the death of all humans, how about a prediction that will mean something close to: "the death of all humans", or at best a serious change in our circumstances, and unavoidable conflict over dwindling resources. What if someone says: "this is a warning", or: "guess what? The Earth doesn't really give a flying fart about you guys", say.

I mean, like how other animals in a similar predicament end up.
We are different from other animals. We can think. We have free will. We may well think our way out of the predicaments you believe will be our undoing. Nanotechnology, solar power, fusion, bio-tech. Who knows what the future may hold. We may well look back on our present concerns over dwindling oil supplies and excess carbon discharges as evidence of how backward we once were.

We may well think our way out of the predicaments you believe will be our undoing. Nanotechnology, solar power, fusion, bio-tech. Who knows what the future may hold.And all this is going to happen, like, next year?

Or next decade, or the one after? Next century perhaps?

Your thinking is seriously flawed. The scenario you describe could never occur. If humans fuck up the planet badly enough, they may well fuck themselves over and, perhaps, whatever species we happen to be sharing the earth with at the time. But, ultimately, the earth will regenerate itself as it has from previous mass extinctions.

So the idea of killing all the humans to save the planet is utterly absurd and, well, evil. Life will continue on the earth no matter what we do. We ourselves may or may not continue; but the earth can take care of itself, it does not require your genocidal protection.

I don't share your optimism, however, I do agree that killing all the humans to save the planet is utterly absurd.. but not because it wouldn't work.
If the greenhouse effect gets severe enough it may become a self-amplifying process. While some bacteria might survive, it wouldn't quite be the same..
Even if it doesn't come this far, the destruction of the environment to the point that most of the organisms become extinct is something I consider to be evil.. more so than killing all the humans.

The planet is not conscious. It has no will. Therefore it can be neither good nor evil. Should mankind go extinct, it wouldn't be due to the good or evil desires of the earth itself.

Humans, on the other hand, do have will. They are conscious. They are responsible for their actions and can choose good or evil.

Perhaps you lack the moral courage to define anything as "good or evil"; but I'll go out on a limb and say a wish for the death of all humans is evil.

You just don't see the big picture.. the greater good :D ;)

We are different from other animals. We can think. We have free will. We may well think our way out of the predicaments you believe will be our undoing. Nanotechnology, solar power, fusion, bio-tech. Who knows what the future may hold. We may well look back on our present concerns over dwindling oil supplies and excess carbon discharges as evidence of how backward we once were.

Yes Homo sapiens is so fantastically superior. So superior in fact that we may eradicate ourselves in the process of being so superior.
The biggest problem of mankind is it's God complex.

Whatever the future holds, hydrogen is a real alternative today and tomorrow. If we don't try something then we won't ever know now , will we?

I don't want it, and it is quite unrealistic that anything of the sort will ever happen.
I just think it would be the only solution to the problem.
Needless to say I have given up hope.. we're doomed.
Yes 'we', destruction of the environment eventually spells the destruction of the human race.



This is one of the most scarey outcomes of the brainwashing of society about the "human caused" global warming.
People literally talking about eliminating the human race to "save the Mother Earth".
This psychotic thinking is even WORSE than wars in the past in the name of religious fanatacism. Seriously.

I'm all for a clean environment and getting off the oil kick, but this psycho bull shit that the
Earth is on the edge of distruction, and it's "all humanity's fault" is nothing less than
bull shit propoganda.

I don't share your optimism, however, I do agree that killing all the humans to save the planet is utterly absurd.. but not because it wouldn't work.Your morals are seriously fucked up. Even an ant has the good sence to value ant life above all other.
If the greenhouse effect gets severe enough it may become a self-amplifying process. While some bacteria might survive, it wouldn't quite be the same..
Come on now, the Permian-Triassic extinction killed 95% of all species on earth, yet it recovered. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction killed the dinosaurs. There have been multiple mass extinctions on this planet and yet it has always recovered. You think releasing a bit more CO2 is worse than the multiple asteroid impacts, ice ages, and volcanos that have plagued the earth in the past? Really? How about when the moon crashed into the earth? Is driving an SUV worse than 2 worlds colliding?

There have been multiple mass extinctions on this planet and yet it has always recovered. You think releasing a bit more CO2 is worse than the multiple asteroid impacts, ice ages, and volcanos that have plagued the earth in the past It might be worse than some of them.

Jury's still out. Cross your fingers.

I'm all for a clean environment and getting off the oil kick, but this psycho bull shit that the Earth is on the edge of distruction, and it's "all humanity's fault" is nothing less than bull shit propoganda.
Rest assured that the more wacko elements of the environmental movement do realize that life will prosper without humanity. They are downright rapturous (pun very much intended) on the subject. Exactly how well life would fare without humanity choking it down is the subject of
A best-selling book, "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman.
The TV documentary "Life After People" on the History Channel.
The TV documentary "Aftermath: Population Zero" on the National Geographic Channel.
Articles in Discovery, Scientific American, New Scientist, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and on and on.

this psycho bull shit that the Earth is on the edge of distruction, and it's "all humanity's fault" is nothing less than bull shit propoganda.No, if the Earth is "on the edge of destruction", that's when it's about to crash into another planet, or the Sun, or something.

The notion that we humans are capable of initiating the "destruction" of a planet is up there with the notion we can migrate to Mars. We aren't destroying anything, we're changing something though, I'd say anyone who stands up and denies that humans are capable of changing the planet needs a padded room.

All things change in a dynamic environment.

Sea levels are going to rise a full quarter of an inch in the next century. I'm so scared I'm wetting my pants.

I'm so scared I'm wetting my pants.Well, they say every little helps.
Or is that monkeys?

This is one of the most scarey outcomes of the brainwashing of society about the "human caused" global warming.
People literally talking about eliminating the human race to "save the Mother Earth".
This psychotic thinking is even WORSE than wars in the past in the name of religious fanatacism. Seriously.

I'm all for a clean environment and getting off the oil kick, but this psycho bull shit that the
Earth is on the edge of distruction, and it's "all humanity's fault" is nothing less than
bull shit propoganda.

If you say so.

Just for the record, it was just the only solution to the problem I could come up with. It's a ridiculous scenario however and will never happen.

Your morals are seriously fucked up. Even an ant has the good sence to value ant life above all other.

Come on now, the Permian-Triassic extinction killed 95% of all species on earth, yet it recovered. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction killed the dinosaurs. There have been multiple mass extinctions on this planet and yet it has always recovered. You think releasing a bit more CO2 is worse than the multiple asteroid impacts, ice ages, and volcanos that have plagued the earth in the past? Really? How about when the moon crashed into the earth? Is driving an SUV worse than 2 worlds colliding?

What about the moon crashing into earth :confused:

It's really hilarious how people get all upset all of a sudden when it's about them being killed instead of the animals.

You deny the greenhouse effect, I don't. There 's your difference.

It's just a hypothetical, lighten the fuck up.

Oh, and my morals are just fine, probably better than most peoples morals on this site.

Thought for the day:

Economists are like passengers who have convinced the Captain that the lookouts need to keep a close watch on the boat's wake pattern, because that's the best way to tell if she's moving ahead in a nice straight line.

According to the people who measure such things, a little less than 40% of the CO2 in the air over your head at the moment was generated by fossil fuel combustion.
LOL. There is no such thing as fossil fuel. And the idea that 40% of CO2 is man made is absolutely ridiculous. Less than 1% is man made.

FYI photosynthesis of CO2 is necessary in order to breathe.

There is no such thing as fossil fuel.
If there's no such thing as fossil fuel, is there such a thing as fuel?
Does it do anything, or we just call it fuel, it doesn't have to? Oh right, there's all that "products of combustion" thingamy.

FYI before photosynthesis, there was no "breathe".

Less than 1% is man made.Strictly speaking, we don't really "make" anything, it was all here before we showed up. So all the CO2 up there wasn't made by us, we just sort of assembled it from a kitset, and then let it all get there by itself.

We need the CO2 for plant growth. When CO2 is high, life on Earth is lush. Without it, there will be deserts even if there is enough rainfall.

We need the CO2 for plant growth. When CO2 is high, life on Earth is lush. Without it, there will be deserts even if there is enough rainfall.Bzzzzzt! No, we don't need CO2, plants do.
Too much CO2 is a signal for the ice to all melt, and flood the continents. Except that last happened in the Cretaceous when there were two large supercontinental masses, and no glacial episodes. The Ice Ages didn't come along until the landmasses had split up and separated, so both poles now have land at or around them and ice caps form.

At least that's all part of the bigger picture, which includes the way the planet recycles carbon - very important cycle that one, next to tectonics, because they sort of go together.

What about the moon crashing into earth :confused:That's the most common theory for how the moon came to be orbiting the earth.
The Giant Impactor Theory : This theory proposes that a planetesimal (or small planet) the size of Mars struck the Earth just after the formation of the solar system, ejecting large volumes of heated material from the outer layers of both objects. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually stuck together to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth. This theory can explain why the Moon is made mostly of rock and how the rock was excessively heated. Furthermore, we see evidence in many places in the solar system that such collisions were common late in the formative stages of the solar system. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question38.html

It's really hilarious how people get all upset all of a sudden when it's about them being killed instead of the animals.It's really hilarious how some people can't see the difference between killing humans and killing animals.
You deny the greenhouse effect, I don't. There 's your difference.I don't deny it at all. I do question the extent to which it is actually responsible for the slight increase in average global temperature we've seen over the past 100 years. I also question our ablility to do anything about for a cost we can afford even if we are responsible. Finally, I question whether the trillions of dollars it would cost is the best use of that money in a world where many people don't even have access to clean water.
It's just a hypothetical, lighten the fuck up.I happen to believe that ideas have consequences. When someone goes around constantly preaching about how the world would be better off without humans, someone, somewhere just might take them seriously.

It's really hilarious how some people can't see the difference between killing humans and killing animals.It's even more hilarious that some people think there is a difference. I haven't noticed Mother Earth giving us any handouts or special consideration.

Could it be the planet treats us just like all the other animals? Maybe we're animals too? Now there's a real gob-smacker.

If there's no such thing as fossil fuel, is there such a thing as fuel?
Yes. Mantle oil.

FYI before photosynthesis, there was no "breathe".
Exactly. You radicals want us to stop breathing.

It's even more hilarious that some people think there is a difference. I haven't noticed Mother Earth giving us any handouts or special consideration.

Could it be the planet treats us just like all the other animals? Maybe we're animals too? Now there's a real gob-smacker.
I didn't write that so I can't respond to this.

I don't deny it at all. I do question the extent to which it is actually responsible for the slight increase in average global temperature we've seen over the past 100 years You can "question" all you want, about the scientific basis - a good place to start would be the peer-reviewed journals, where such questioning has been a hot topic for thirty years and more, and where a general consensus has emerged: the rapid and dramatic accumulation of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is likely to have some serious effects on the climate, and both the size and the speed of the boost are beyond anything humans have ever experienced.

The political side of things remains: given the probabilities and possibilities, what is the sensible response ?

It's even more hilarious that some people think there is a difference. I haven't noticed Mother Earth giving us any handouts or special consideration.

Could it be the planet treats us just like all the other animals? Maybe we're animals too? Now there's a real gob-smacker.The earth doesn't treat us in any way at all. It's a lump of rock. It gives special consideration to no one. Species come, species go. The earth continues in its orbit completely unaware.

The difference is not in how the earth treats us, it's how we treat each other. That a human should value human life above all other really should go without saying. But, apparently, what is blindingly obvious to a two year isn't obvious to you.

The political side of things remains: given the probabilities and possibilities, what is the sensible response ?"I can't respond to this."

Yeah, that sounds nice an' sensible, right there.

I live in Manhattan and the CO2 is just fine thank you. I love the smog. SO2 ftw.

http://gothamist.com/attachments/Joe%20Schumacher/tankengine_smog_0627.jpg

An active volcano can emit 10 million tonnes of SO2 per day.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

The large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km 3 of dacite magma and injected about 17 million tonnes of SO2 into the stratosphere. The sulfur aerosols resulted in a 0.5-0.6°C cooling of the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere.
Nuke the volcanoes.

The earth doesn't treat us in any way at all. It's a lump of rock. It gives special consideration to no one.Not even to you or me? Or sciforums? My goodness.
Species come, species go. The earth continues in its orbit completely unaware.

The difference is not in how the earth treats us, it's how we treat each other. That a human should value human life above all other really should go without saying. But, apparently, what is blindingly obvious to a two year isn't obvious to you.A human should value human life, as in their own life and other humans' lives?
How much, or compared to what?

The planet doesn't value us or any other animals. Animals define their own value, in both senses of the word, so what's your value for human animal dominance, survival, or loss of somewhere to live? What does "value" have to do with any of those things?

The political side of things remains: given the probabilities and possibilities, what is the sensible response ?
There was a thread recently that quoted a cost of $45 trillion to make a dent in global warming. Do you honestly believe we can afford $45 trillion? Really?

We can't afford to address global warming in a significant way. Half measures will serve only to impoverish us and limit our ability to respond to any climate changes that do occur.

Oil supplies are running low anyway. We will ultimately develop alternative energy sources and, with $4 a gallon gas (with no sign of an end to the price increases), we will have a huge motivation to develop them.

Even within my home state of Indiana, they've recently built a huge windfarm:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_JvvB6-2vDC8/SF6L4m_tl5I/AAAAAAAABvw/j1ma7FaqyNA/s400/windmills-2.jpg

Again, to be able to afford to make the adjustments we need to make, we need to avoid arbitrary carbon restrictions that choke off our economy and limit our ability to adapt to a changing world.

There was a thread recently that quoted a cost of $45 trillion to make a dent in global warming. Do you honestly believe we can afford $45 trillion? Really? I don't honestly believe that thread fact had the slightest connection to physical reality, or involved anything sensible people would even consider.

A 45 trillion dollar price tag on the effects of the CO2 boost itself sound much easier to back up.

In a situation in which a major factor is the rate of change - not just the change itself - even modest and ordinary measures undertaken in good time could have great benefits.

In a situation in which a major factor is the rate of change - not just the change itself - even modest and ordinary measures undertaken in good time could have great benefits.
Those measures will be undertaken without any government agencies holding meetings or imposing regulations. Carbon based energy is getting more expensive. This in and of itself will motivate the development of technologies to replace it.

Government mandates regarding carbon output will serve only to slow economic growth and delay the development of those technologies.

That's what I'm against.

So we are definitely back in the dark ages with yet another variation of armageddon, the infamous tipping point based on a completely false scientific perception.

It's completely unimportant that the enhanced greenhouse effect is completely falsified, both in theory and by factual observations. We can't do without the scaremongering So scaremongering we get, no matter what.

So we are definitely back in the dark agesNo, not yet, that's the plan though.It's completely unimportant that the enhanced greenhouse effect is completely falsified, both in theory and by factual observations.You're saying the GEO report is scaremongering?
Are the economic forecasters scaremongering too, is the Fed just working everyone up because they like to scare people, you think?

"Tipping Point", the Fear Factory is at it again. Next thing is "Stampeding", "Lemmings". Loon Hansen now wants to put the Oil Bosses on trial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange), back to the dark medieval ages, witch hunt, stakes. A good thing them days; no fuel burning, less C02, nice cold weather, everybody happy, aight?

http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/Tom%20photo%20for%20tract.JPG

That's the most common theory for how the moon came to be orbiting the earth.
No, the theory is that a planet (Theia) roughly the size of Mars collided with Earth. The debris formed the Moon. This was long before any life evolved on Earth though.

It's really hilarious how some people can't see the difference between killing humans and killing animals.
What actually is the difference, apart from the fact that we ourselves are humans ?

I don't deny it at all. I do question the extent to which it is actually responsible for the slight increase in average global temperature we've seen over the past 100 years.
Oh come on..
Even if you take away global warming, life is still being destroyed by hand of man.

I also question our ablility to do anything about for a cost we can afford even if we are responsible.
I agree.
I question our ability to do anything about it regardless of the cost.

Finally, I question whether the trillions of dollars it would cost is the best use of that money in a world where many people don't even have access to clean water.
IF there is something we can do, we should do it regardless of the cost.

I happen to believe that ideas have consequences. When someone goes around constantly preaching about how the world would be better off without humans, someone, somewhere just might take them seriously.
Point taken..
I just can't take it when people start yelling that some animal population has run rampant (the kangaroos for example) and they need to be culled to save the local environment.
What people seem to miss is that there is a direct parallel with humans. The human species also has run rampant and is destroyed the environment because of their sheer numbers, just like the kangaroos.

It's even more hilarious that some people think there is a difference. I haven't noticed Mother Earth giving us any handouts or special consideration.

Could it be the planet treats us just like all the other animals? Maybe we're animals too? Now there's a real gob-smacker.

Exactly.

That a human should value human life above all other really should go without saying.

Justify ?

But, apparently, what is blindingly obvious to a two year isn't obvious to you.
So by your own admission it's a sentiment that small kids, that haven't fully developed their brain yet, enjoy ?
Awesome argument.
Humans (adults) have the brain power to see beyond the perspective of a two year old.

"I can't respond to this."

Yeah, that sounds nice an' sensible, right there.

He's right though. It was Madant that posted that, not Oil.
You made an unintentional error there.

Ah well.

Perhaps there's another connection that isn't being spotted, or something.
If you shift the POV back to post #78, maybe.

I know but the following was originally posted by Madant in post 75:
It's really hilarious how some people can't see the difference between killing humans and killing animals.

Then you replied:

It's really hilarious how some people can't see the difference between killing humans and killing animals.
It's even more hilarious that some people think there is a difference. I haven't noticed Mother Earth giving us any handouts or special consideration.

Could it be the planet treats us just like all the other animals? Maybe we're animals too? Now there's a real gob-smacker.

See ? You made a mistake there :)

Whoops, too many swigs of coffee.

Whoops, too many swigs of coffee.

lol ;)

Those measures will be undertaken without any government agencies holding meetings or imposing regulations. No they won't. Not as long as some people can make money for themselves by defying them.

Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. Market forces don't prevent it.

You will never see a market-based development of a new basic societal infrastructure. It's not something markets can do.

I live in Manhattan and the CO2 is just fine thank you. I love the smog. SO2 ftw.

http://gothamist.com/attachments/Joe%20Schumacher/tankengine_smog_0627.jpg

An active volcano can emit 10 million tonnes of SO2 per day.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html


Nuke the volcanoes.

I lived down by Hoboken for my 6 years of my life, down to drain. The smog is disgusting, at least there are rains and storms to clear the air.

at least there are rains and storms to clear the air.Yes, and there will no doubt be more rain and storms in Hoboken.
Or not.

No they won't. Not as long as some people can make money for themselves by defying them.

Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. Market forces don't prevent it.

You will never see a market-based development of a new basic societal infrastructure. It's not something markets can do.
Utter and complete bunk. Sure, some people can make money by doing what we're doing now. But they, or others, can make even more money by being the first to offer an alternative.

Be the first company to come out with an electric car that sells for say 20k and has a good range (200 miles or more) and you'll make a mint.

Why would market forces not produce such an outcome?

How did we go from the horse and carrage to the car? From candles to lightbulbs? From sliderules to calculators?

Who created and popularized the personal computer when big business and government assumed there was no need or demand for them? Guys in garages like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, that's who. Now they're billionaires via the forces of the free market.

How did we go from the horse and carrage to the car? From candles to lightbulbs? From sliderules to calculators?

Who created and popularized the personal computer when big business and government assumed there was no need or demand for them? Government resources, government nurturing and investment, government infrastructure. Every single one of those things.

The same way we'll go from fossil fuel to solar power basis - if we do.

So first, put the market cart in front of the technology horse, to argue a point, then swap them back later?

How was Bill Gates helped by the market to develop his product again? How many investors were interested in him and his garage band of buddies in 1985? Didn't he really just grab hold of an existing technology and re-package it? IBM got the ball rolling with a standard platform, which became the industry vanilla. All Bill Gates did was invent a new topping.

He didn't get any wave going, he was just the first one to catch it.
Like Ford, who saw an opportunity not to make a better mousetrap, but a cheaper one. Bill Gates, however, was able to exploit a product - the machine that someone else invented. He got rich selling fuel for the new engines, but this time around, instead of the machine-makers catching a wave, the fuel-makers did. The technology arrived because it was bound to, not because Bill Gates & co. made it happen.

James Hansen from NASA was jsut in front of Congress, with some interesting numbers. Apparently the speedup in visible effects has changed the likely critical points, and by his latest numbers to avoid a 90% chance of crossing a tipping point we would need to hold the CO2 concentration at 350 ppm or less, from its 285 last century.

It's currently at 385, and rising about 2 per year.

That rise is possibly accelerating.

But maybe he's wrong.

For some reason, everyone seems to think that 'saving the environment' is maintaining status quo. The environment has constantly changed in large ways since it developed. I don't really understand how stopping the environment's change is considered doing good. We think we're smart or powerful enough to do what is right for the environment, which people seem to think is to stop it in its tracks. So we're creating this so called 'tipping point' in our own perception by thinking we can stop things from changing, then when it turns out we can't, its this big tragedy.

This is one situation in which we should be reactive, not proactive. We can't do shit against what the environment wants to do, so we should do what we can to go along with it.

This is one situation in which we should be reactive, not proactive. We can't do shit against what the environment wants to do, so we should do what we can to go along with it. Pumping lots more CO2 out to accumulate in the air is not exactly "going along with what the environment wants to do ".

I agree.
I question our ability to do anything about it regardless of the cost.


IF there is something we can do, we should do it regardless of the cost.That is just idiotic. Have you ever noticed that when a hurricane hits Guatemala or Nicaragua or some other third world country they'll have thousands of casualties yet when one hits the US we'll have hardly any (but millions of dollars in damage)?

Why are casualties so much higher in poor countries? Because wealthy countries can afford to do things to minimize the damage done by extreme weather.

Now, if we waste trillions of dollars on measures that have no real effect, that leaves us with much less money to adjust to whatever changes occur. That means the people will suffer and die MORE due to expensive half measures than by doing nothing at all.
I just can't take it when people start yelling that some animal population has run rampant (the kangaroos for example) and they need to be culled to save the local environment.
What people seem to miss is that there is a direct parallel with humans. The human species also has run rampant and is destroyed the environment because of their sheer numbers, just like the kangaroos.Once again, the difference is, WE'RE NOT KANGAROOS!. Our goal should be to maximize the comfort and well being of human beings.

Now it may be that you personally enjoy seeing unspoiled land untouched by man. If so, that's fine. Get together with some like minded fellows and buy up some land and turn it into nature preserves. But don't come around telling other people how to live their lives or that they need to die so that your vision of unspoiled nature can be realized.

Have you ever noticed that when a hurricane hits Guatemala or Nicaragua or some other third world country they'll have thousands of casualties yet when one hits the US we'll have hardly any (but millions of dollars in damage)?

Why are casualties so much higher in poor countries? Because wealthy countries can afford to do things to minimize the damage done by extreme weather.

Now, if we waste trillions of dollars on measures that have no real effect, that leaves us with much less money to adjust to whatever changes occur. Comparing the serious hurricanes that hit Cuba - direct strike on dense populations - and the US, in a couple of years ago, we saw the opposite pattern.

Apparently, simply saving up big piles of wealth does not prepare a country adequately for the possibilities of disaster.

Now it may be that you personally enjoy seeing unspoiled land untouched by man. If so, that's fine. Get together with some like minded fellows and buy up some land and turn it into nature preserves. But don't come around telling other people how to live their lives or that they need to die so that your vision of unspoiled nature can be realized Wait a minute: how come these other people can wreck stuff I value, and blight my life, and I can't prevent them from doing that ? They can tell me how to live, and I can't return the favor ? People who want to wreck stuff they don't own are in the right, and people who want to enjoy unwrecked stuff they don't own are in the wrong ? The people who want to mine nickel next to the Boundary Waters don't own the Boundary Waters. The people driving smoky diesels downtown don't own the air.

Comparing the serious hurricanes that hit Cuba - direct strike on dense populations - and the US, in a couple of years ago, we saw the opposite pattern.

Apparently, simply saving up big piles of wealth does not prepare a country adequately for the possibilities of disaster.

Complete and utter bullshit. What was the death toll from hurricane Katrina in the US? 1800 or so, I believe. And that was from the worst hurricane to ever hit New Orleans, our most vulnerable city. Lets compare that with some other (poorer) areas hit by hurricanes or cyclones:
May 3, 2008. Cyclone Nargis, swept along by winds that exceeded 190 kmh and waves six metres high struck the Burmese peninsula and may have left as many as 100,000 dead, according to U.S. estimates.

Oct. 26-Nov. 4, 1998. Hurricane Mitch was the deadliest hurricane to hit the Americas. It killed 11,000 in Honduras and Nicaragua and left 2.5 million homeless.

Aug. 5, 1975. At least 85,000 were killed along the Yangtze River in China when more than 60 dams failed following a series of storms, causing widespread flooding and famine. This disaster was kept secret by the Chinese government for 20 years.

August 1971. An estimated 100,000 died when heavy rains led to severe flooding around Hanoi in what was then North Vietnam.

Nov. 13, 1970. The Bhola cyclone in the Ganges delta killed an estimated 500,000 in Bangladesh. Some put the complete death toll as high as one million.

June, 1938. Nationalist Chinese soldiers, under the direction of Chiang Kai-Shek, blew up dikes around the Yellow River to stop Japanese troops from advancing. More than half a million people died in the resulting flood.

May-August 1931. Massive flooding of China's Yellow and Yangtze rivers led to almost four million deaths from drowning, disease and starvation. The flooding of the Yangtze also killed an estimated 100,000 in 1911 and 140,000 in 1935. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/05/08/f-natural-disasters-history.html
Is it just good luck that none of these disasters resulting in hundreds of thousands or even millions of deaths occured in wealthy nations? Or, perhaps, do our piles of money do some good, afterall? Perhaps our wealth allow us to build structures that can withstand greater trauma. Perhaps it allows us to have the infrastructure to respond to such emergencies and minimize the deaths. What do you think?

That is just idiotic. Have you ever noticed that when a hurricane hits Guatemala or Nicaragua or some other third world country they'll have thousands of casualties yet when one hits the US we'll have hardly any (but millions of dollars in damage)?

Why are casualties so much higher in poor countries? Because wealthy countries can afford to do things to minimize the damage done by extreme weather.

Now, if we waste trillions of dollars on measures that have no real effect, that leaves us with much less money to adjust to whatever changes occur. That means the people will suffer and die MORE due to expensive half measures than by doing nothing at all.
Uhm.. it's you being idiotic. You read that again..

Once again, the difference is, WE'RE NOT KANGAROOS!. Our goal should be to maximize the comfort and well being of human beings.

Now it may be that you personally enjoy seeing unspoiled land untouched by man. If so, that's fine. Get together with some like minded fellows and buy up some land and turn it into nature preserves. But don't come around telling other people how to live their lives or that they need to die so that your vision of unspoiled nature can be realized.
A typical response from ignorance (I hope it's ignorance).

..or that they need to die so that your vision of unspoiled nature can be realized.
Again, concentrate better when you read my posts.

Complete and utter bullshit. What was the death toll from hurricane Katrina in the US? 1800 or so, I believe. And that was from the worst hurricane to ever hit New Orleans, our most vulnerable city.

Yea vulnerable because you idiots didn't invest in better dikes and stuff.
I understand your government called in the help of the Dutch to do it for them.

Our goal should be to maximize the comfort and well being of human beings. All 6.something billion of them? All driving SUVs and living 4 to an 1800 sq ft. house, earning >50k a year. and so on?

That's a dream. pal.

Some humans, maybe, but humans in general? That's complete crap; for some to be rich and happy, others in general have to be poor and miserable - there's a balance. We really can't have everything, you know - there's always only so big a pie to share around.

Utter and complete bunk. Sure, some people can make money by doing what we're doing now. But they, or others, can make even more money by being the first to offer an alternative.


Governments and the UN in particular can make A LOT MORE money off the "human caused" global warming hype. They'll just use it as an excuse to raise taxes on companies and people to "save Mother Earth"......

Maybe if they get desperate enough, they'll develop time machines to go back in time to visit the multitude of other NATURALLY CAUSED global warmings, and tax the neanderthal men, homo erectus, homo habilis, dinosaurs, etc........:rolleyes:

Some humans, maybe, but humans in general? That's complete crap; for some to be rich and happy, others in general have to be poor and miserable - there's a balance. We really can't have everything, you know - there's always only so big a pie to share around.

That's true, and why we need to start looking at a bigger scope of things, like all the other resources in the solar system (and later, outside the solar system). Nuclear fusion power, solar power, advances in the studies of human survival in space, space travel and human migration to other planets, and humanity will be set for thousands of years to come.

Complete and utter bullshit. What was the death toll from hurricane Katrina in the US? 1800 or so, I believe. And that was from the worst hurricane to ever hit New Orleans, our most vulnerable city. Lets compare that with some other (poorer) areas hit by hurricanes or cyclones: How about we stick to the comparison with Cuba, which IIRC was hit square by two hurricanes more or less equivalent to Katrina in about a year, and weathered the storms better than than the US did Katrina alone.

Money is not enough. Preparation counts.

The ludicrous side of a $45 trillion invoice to "save the planet", is it hasn't got a figure on the ledger for the cost of "not doing a thing about it".

What's the bill going to be for the "cost" of business, exploitation of dwindling marine, agricultural, groundwater and palaeowater resources?

There's the thing, business simply does not account for these costs, but "assumes" an unlimited resource, that's the "rational" model we use, it's the "use it" model where the problem of resource depletion is considered to be external to the issues of profit, expansion and that other thing - oh yeah: "growth".
Can we keep tuning the strings up tighter and tighter?

Some humans, maybe, but humans in general? That's complete crap; for some to be rich and happy, others in general have to be poor and miserable - there's a balance. We really can't have everything, you know - there's always only so big a pie to share around.
Typical liberal zero sum game thinking. I don't need anyone to be poor to make me rich. The more money everyone else has; the more they can spend on new glasses, contacts, LASIK, whatever at my place.

By increasing productivity via technology we increase the total amount of wealth. So there's more for everyone. Of course you global warming luddites would have us all living in the stone age in abject poverty.
How about we stick to the comparison with Cuba, which IIRC was hit square by two hurricanes more or less equivalent to Katrina in about a year, and weathered the storms better than than the US did Katrina alone.

Money is not enough. Preparation counts.The ones I listed were the worst hurricanes/cyclones in history. Note there wasn't a first world country among them.

The more money everyone else has; the more they can spend on new glasses, contacts, LASIK, whatever at my place.Money comes from technology, right? People who are poor are technology-poor, give them some money instead, they can only buy what they have available, so money isn't even all that useful, by itself.

Are you saying giving everyone some money so they can go to America and get a LASIK done, is the way to resolve poverty?

Of course technology is the way. But technology is also the way to use everything up - then we won't be able to invent new stuff unless we use the "old stuff" over again. Or you think the human race can use up all the metals, gases, turn them into things they use for a year or so, then bury again?

We probably will have to start digging up the stuff we threw away at some point - it's a long way off, but it's still coming. Something else might happen before then, like in the next century.

In which case there won't be much of a world of money and technology to worry about, for whoever is left, wherever they get left. But I'd think hard about staying in Florida, say, by that stage, seeing how most of it won't be there any more.

Madanthony, how old are you ?

Madanthony, how old are you ?
41. Why do you ask?

41. Why do you ask?

No particular reason. My guess was about right.
It gives me more perspective about who I'm dealing with ;)

The ones I listed were the worst hurricanes/cyclones in history. Note there wasn't a first world country among them. And the examples I picked were a couple of comparably sized hurricanes hitting comparably sized and populated areas in the same geographical region at about the same time.

So ? The point is, wealth and resource is only one measure of preparedness, and not necessarily the critical one.

The top-heavy economy of the US will not be made more capable by increasing its size, nor will the increasingly authoritarian and simultaneously increasingly less competent US government be made more capable by neglect of its proper functions.

btw: among your list of great floods, note the presence not only of hurricanes but of deliberate decisions by capitalist backed, wealth accumulating governments: US backed Chiang Kai-Shek's blowing of the Chinese levee system. IIRC that great drowning was never credited to the Western side of things, and the subsequent famine was credited to Mao entirely. And the whole thing, of course, was presented as an example of the evils of third world poverty, by you.

So it's like, we need to somehow learn from, or learn how to deal with our ability to exploit things, then move on and exploit something else. That is, we need to overcome our instinctive nature to exploit resources, like all animals do, because we are now capable of exploiting far too much of it.

Other animals who aren't as intelligent or adaptive as we are can't move on, they're constrained in numbers by the niches they occupy - a key part of our evolutionary heritage that we have overcome, I'd say.
Now for the other bit.

No particular reason. My guess was about right.
It gives me more perspective about who I'm dealing with ;)

http://www.hjo3.net/orly/gal2/orly_baby.jpg

btw: among your list of great floods, note the presence not only of hurricanes but of deliberate decisions by capitalist backed, wealth accumulating governments: US backed Chiang Kai-Shek's blowing of the Chinese levee system.Of course your friend Mao did a much better job of protecting the Chinese people...:(

Of course your friend Mao did a much better job of protecting the Chinese people.. Better than deliberately creating one of the all time greatest flood disasters in world history, with subsequent famines etc?

To add to the other atrocities and horrors of the pre-Mao regimes, which had effects also credited to Mao afterwards, in the historical revisions ?

The fact that Mao's regime can be compared with such governance, and the comparison be of a kind, is proof that Mao's regime was a monstrous one.

Just remember to give credit where credit is due, compare apples to apples etc, when evaluating the benefits of corporate colonial capitalistic governance on disaster response.

http://www.hjo3.net/orly/gal2/orly_baby.jpg

Of course your friend Mao did a much better job of protecting the Chinese people...:(

I'm not sure what you're getting at here..
Please explain ?