4 Years to Save Earth!

[iceaura]

As to mating as a reproductive strategy, it's been theorized that sexual dimorphism (men being larger than women) exists specifically to facilitate rape.

That theory has been mostly shot down, noting that the frequency of rape as a reproductive strategy is not well correlated with sexual dimorphism in animals.

Sexual dimorphism favoring males correlates with reproductive success gained by fighting other males, not raping females. The male scorpions you mentioned, for example, are not bigger than the females.

Furthermore, if rape were not meant to be used as a reproductive strategy, why are men even able to maintain an erection in the face of an unwilling partner?

Many aren't. Even many rapists can't do it - it's a fairly common cause of extra violence in rape, as the woman is blamed for the failure and beaten. Many rapists demand the women feign enjoyment.

And many men can maintain an erection in the face, so to speak, of a sheep or plastic toy. Reproduction has little to do with that.

Meanwhile: solitary, single event rape as a means of reproduction has a very low success rate even of initial pregnancy, let alone survival of the child. Willing promiscuity in a clan or small tribe works much better, with or without ritualized consensual dominance (proof of physical strength and competence), and explains the physiology much better as well. Humans don't reproduce by actual rape very well.

So. What does the "rape for power" theory have going for it? Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

It has the threat of rape used (often overtly) to control women going for it. It has organized programs of military rape going for it. It has the frequency of rape in non-reproductive circumstances (old,young, wrong gender, hadnicapped, imprisoned or victimized otherwise, etc etc etc) going for it. It has anal, oral, and object or instrumental rape going for it.

And some of your arguments don't hold - the non-raping of rich and powerful women is only by those men who are less powerful than they are, and are vulnerable to revenge; their peers, who can gain power by rape, rape them at ordinary frequencies (but fewer of them means less often). If rape were for reproduction, a rich and powerful woman easily capable of caring for a child would be natural target one.

Most rapes occur between acquaintances, usually on dates. The rapists say, in later therapy, that they just couldn't stop themselves.

They also say that the woman enjoyed it, quite often - at least until they learn not to say that, picking up cues from the therapist. Which means that most rape is, for most males, significantly consensual - at least in delusion, but that delusion is key.

THIS is nature, and it is nasty, brutish, and perpetual.

It is not human nature.

Edit: I forgot to add that the result of feminist teaching is the myth that the best recourse during rape is to lay still and not fight back,

That is no "feminist" teaching I ever heard in my life.

However, studies that look at what happens when women fight back shows that the majority of them prevent the rape from occurring, and the man leaves without finishing the job. NOT what you would expect if rape is about control. EXACTLY what you would expect if rape is about reproduction.

It's the other way around - exactly what you would expect from attempted assertion of control (or ritual display of prowess to gain consent, for that matter, not a rape at all), not what you would expect from forced reproduction.

 

[Enmos]

Nope. I clearly stated that it was not seeing you distance yourself from the human-hater.

Excuse me.. !? :bugeye:

 

[Enmos]

My slogan in life is very short but chock-full of hypocrisy:

DEATH TO FANATICS!

And that, bud, makes you a fanatic.

 

[swivel]

And that, bud, makes you a fanatic.

Uhhh... did you look up the word "hypocrisy" when you got to that bit of my post, or do you just skip over the words you don't understand? :bugeye:

 

[Enmos]

Uhhh... did you look up the word "hypocrisy" when you got to that bit of my post, or do you just skip over the words you don't understand? :bugeye:

What's with the attitude all of a sudden ?

 

[dixonmassey]

Last remark about animal "rape".

Why do most species require two sexes to procreate? Maximum genetic variety? Not so. Hermaphrodites are champions as far as combinatorial maximum is concerned. Two sexes are optimal to cope with ever changing environment. One sex (human males and males in general) have much greater rate of mutations, males are far more "diverse" in their sizes, strength, genius & stupidity, etc. than females. Females are much more "uniform" and sturdy, their mission is to choose the most successfully mutated male for copulation, whose genes will give her progeny the greatest chances to survive (in comfort). Therefore, allowing rape is counterproductive to the nature designs. All that trouble with two sexes, mutating at different rates and for what? Without strong taboo on rape integrated into animal reflexes, two sex adaptation mode is much less efficient if not pointless.


Rape is a pure product of "intelligence" and self-awareness enabling an individual to rebel against its reflexes and instincts.

Lastly, what appears to be a rape is not always a rape even among humans, not speaking of animals measured with anthropocentric rulers. Women, in general, instinctively attracted to the dominant, aggressive, "non reflexive", egoistic males (sorry my gentle, touchy feely pals nature doesn't value you much). It's not a cultural thing, it's not irrational thing, it's instinctive, it's a natural thing. Needless to say most rapes and "rapes" are committed by the males I've described above, and not by the avid readers of Tolstoy and Plato. Only a woman knows if that was indeed a rape, most would lie about instinctive attraction. Males capable of rape and "rape" are showing their dominance, their potential to move up hierarchical ladder. That's what human females are after. Therefore, even among humans a rape could be a "rape".

PS. Please, leave ducks alone. Ducks don't rape, they behave in the only instinctive way they know.

 

[Slacker47]

hey, maybe she was askin for it

 

[Red Devil]

I do not think even 'experts' get it right. I was told that the deadline - the point of no return - was 2049.

It is a fact that we are producing much more CO2 than the earth can handle and even the oceans have given up trying. Now, either the human will adapt to breathing CO2 or we will vanish. As it takes millions of years to adapt, I think it is true to say, we are screwed.

The only answer if off world, but then the politicians will explain why it is THEY who should go the botanists will complain that is it they who should go, and the leaders will order themselves to go.

 

[Cazzo]

It is a fact that we are producing much more CO2 than the earth can handle and even the oceans have given up trying. Now, either the human will adapt to breathing CO2 or we will vanish. As it takes millions of years to adapt, I think it is true to say, we are screwed.

The CO2 produced by mankind makes up only a fraction of 1% of the total atmosphere.....pleasssssseeee.

I'm all for cleaning up pollution and saving forests, but this doom and gloom end of the world crap reminds me of a cult...

 

[fedr808]

The CO2 produced by mankind makes up only a fraction of 1% of the total atmosphere.....pleasssssseeee.

I'm all for cleaning up pollution and saving forests, but this doom and gloom end of the world crap reminds me of a cult...

methane has risen 68-140% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

 

[spidergoat]

The CO2 produced by mankind makes up only a fraction of 1% of the total atmosphere.....pleasssssseeee.

I'm all for cleaning up pollution and saving forests, but this doom and gloom end of the world crap reminds me of a cult...

So because it sounds small the effect is insignificant? Do you know anything about science at all? I guess you stayed away from college, it being a recruiting center for the communist party? If I gave you a 1% solution of potassium cyanide would you drink it?

 

[clusteringflux]

methane has risen 68-140% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Risen? In what?..price?
And you're giving yourself a cushion of 72%?

Can you be any more vague?

 

[Cazzo]

So because it sounds small the effect is insignificant? Do you know anything about science at all? I guess you stayed away from college, it being a recruiting center for the communist party? If I gave you a 1% solution of potassium cyanide would you drink it?

Potassium cyanide does not equal CO2.

A more pertanent analogy is if you asked me to enter a room where CO2 made up 2% of the gases rather than 1%; in which case I would enter the room and not be affected.

 

[spidergoat]

Yes, but like cyanide's effects on the body, CO2 has an effect on climate with even small changes of tens of parts per million.

 

[Red Devil]

The CO2 produced by mankind makes up only a fraction of 1% of the total atmosphere.....pleasssssseeee.

I'm all for cleaning up pollution and saving forests, but this doom and gloom end of the world crap reminds me of a cult...

Hey Cazzo, not MY figures but scientific. Oceanography is an exact science and if they measure DRAMATIC increases in CO2 in the oceans its is because the oceans can no longer absorb it. Google it and see for yourself. :shrug:

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Hey Cazzo, not MY figures but scientific. Oceanography is an exact science and if they measure DRAMATIC increases in CO2 in the oceans its is because the oceans can no longer absorb it. Google it and see for yourself. :shrug:

The reason that we are experiencing dramatic rises in CO2 is that the Tundra's are warming, and that major carbon sinks is melting, and that is mostly due to the current orbit of the earth, we are now at the most concentric point of earth orbit.

With that the Tundra is now the major source of CO2 and methane because all that frozen material is now decaying, due to the warm temperatures, and it has nothing to due with anthropomorphic sources, which at their maximum are in the less than .01% range.

That means that our summers are longer, and our winters are shorter, and we are now slowly moving back to the maximum eccentricity of earth's orbit, and if what I read is correct, that will happen about 50,000 years from now in the cycle and we should be deep into a Glacial Period, covering a large portion of the northern hemisphere.

 

[iceaura]

With that the Tundra is now the major source of CO2 and methane because all that frozen material is now decaying, due to the warm temperatures,

The isotope analysis of the CO2 samples at Mauna Loa and other sampling stations indicates that the CO2 buildup of the past century or so is from fossil fuel combustion.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/allison-csiro/allcsiro-mlo.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html

The Earth's orbit does not change quickly enough to explain the current warming trend.

 

[ichatfilipina]

yep, we have to prepare for us and pray that new planet (Nibiru) will not coincide on Earth. December 2012 the collision of planet Nibiru and Planet undefined of which direction the planet Nibiru will hit.

 

[Red Devil]

Forgive the strange look on my face, but are you hiniting at a spot of scientific inventiveness there, ichatfilipina?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

The isotope analysis of the CO2 samples at Mauna Loa and other sampling stations indicates that the CO2 buildup of the past century or so is from fossil fuel combustion.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/allison-csiro/allcsiro-mlo.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html

The Earth's orbit does not change quickly enough to explain the current warming trend.

Earth orbit is exactly what explains the current warming trend.

As can be show the warming periods are longer, and the cooling periods are shorter, we are receive a more consistent level of energy from the sun because of the concentricity of the orbit, and do not have the ability to shed that extra infrared energy.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

This site is concerned with monthly readings and,

http://www.edf.org/documents/1336_co2andtemp.htm

The flux of CO2 between the atmosphere and the equatorial regions can be affected by fluctuations in the temperature through changes in CO2 solubility, upwelling of CO2-enriched deep water, and availability of nutrients for the organic carbon pump. Associated changes in wind and precipitation also affect terrestrial biota. The coherence between temperature and CO2 is significant over a range of frequencies in addition to those that characterize ENSO. [2] It is important to consider whether these mechanisms could lead to a significant positive temperature- CO2 feedback on the longer timescales for which global warming is projected to occur.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html

On this site, it isn't until 1950 that a full set of data in available, so the conclusion is based on 50 years of readings at the most concentric orbit of the Earth in the Malinkovitch Cycles.

Preliminary 2006-2007 Global & National Estimates by Extrapolation by
Extrapolation.

and do you understand the word "Extrapolation"

ex⋅trap⋅o⋅late   /ɪkˈstræpəˌleɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ik-strap-uh-leyt] Show IPA verb, -lat⋅ed, -lat⋅ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.

http://www.edf.org/documents/1336_co2andtemp.htm

again the earliest work on this subject is only from 1960, again a lot of "Extrapolation" to values before 1950, and even a bigger
"Extrapolation" of data from before 1885, and a WAG before 1870.

One of my questions about data before 1950 is the integrity of the collection method of that data.


There are so many variables that now are taken into account, and have to be adjusted for, for a valid sampling, thta anything before 1950, is just "Extrapolation"

The fact that the US is only 2% of the surface of the earth is deceptive. 2/3 of the earth is covered by water where, presumably, temperature data is not collected. That means that the US is 6% of the measurable surface area.

This still may not seem like much until we ask questions like: How much of the earth is actually monitored in this way (what about Antartica and 3rd world countries)? What is the magnitude of the change we are measuring (the change in temperature since we have accurate data is not large so small changes in data effect conclusions)?

Just as NASA had to readjust all of their data because of the forcing of temperatures reading by the location of the data collection site, so can they account for any forcing of data before 1950, and adjust for the forcing that occurred in that data.

Oh Crap!

NASA Revises Temperature Data - 1930's warmest on record!
By AnInconvenientPost

In a stunning turn of events data (quietly) released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998). Lets see if Al Gore revises his road show. Update - Global Warming is actually a Y2K bug!


Data discovered on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website revises recorded temperatures for the United States. It is expected that similar revisions will also be made for global temperature recordings. This information was discovered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit on Wednesday (8/8/2007). No NASA press release, no James Hansen (head of GISS) announcement, nothing. Could it be because they don't want anyone to see it? The data is certainly devastating for the Al Gore camp which has based much of their Carbon Credits sales pitch on recent temperatures (e.g. claiming that 1998 was the warmest on record).


Turns out this NASA data was revised because of a Y2K bug in the algorithm used to adjust measurement station raw data. Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data. NASA's James Hansen has refused to release his algorithms but they were reverse engineered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and NASA has since updated their data (so you know he Steve got it right). What this author finds truly disturbing (and disgusting) is that NASA would keep these algorithms secret. This is public information. Steve really should file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to obtain this and what ever else he needs. NASA would be very hard pressed to justify withholding that information. These events seriously call in to question anything James Hansen has touched, supervised, or managed. Not just because he got the math wrong but because he also hides his methods. He is apparently attempting to establish a new religion by requiring people to have faith in his data.