Conspiracy Scores

[parsley]

I gave you an anwser but it went over your head. Again.

You live in a G7 country.

You'll figure it out.

Someday.

Parsley

[Jay-mo]

"It seems to have shut parsly up." lol

CP, is it over-population that your referring to? The 112/sq. mi. figure you are so worried about should be lowered significantly once the global warming holocaust starts wiping out cities across the globe.....

[Fransisco]

Saying that overpopulation is causing global warming is like lighting a match in your basement and saying that you are heating your house.

[Fransisco]

You want to chew on some numbers? Try these.

Much of the world's actual land surface is empty.

In 1992, the population of Hong Kong City was approximately 247,501 per square mile, while in New York City it was 11,480 per square mile, and in Houston 7,512.

If the entire population of the world were squeezed into Texas, each person would have an area equal to the floor space of a typical home and the population density of Texas would be about the same as Paris, France.

[Fransisco]

And...

The growth rate of the world's population appears to have peaked around 1970, when the annual rate of growth was 2.09 percent.

By 1980, annual population growth was down to 1.73 percent, and by 1990 to 1.7 percent.

By 1995, the annual increase had slowed even more to 1.5 percent.

And so on.

[Fransisco]

The number of people on the planet is not a problem and it's never going to be one.

Besides which I like people, I'm pretty sure I'm people. And I'm not interested in getting rid of people.

[cottonpicken]

So you guys cant see the problem eh?

112 humans per square mile.

Take away deserts,tudra and all the other crap land.

All the needs of a human.

And you come back with texas,g-7,and popuation control through global warming.

Keep digging deeper guys because your so far down the well of stupidity you cant crawl out no matter what you say.

[Fransisco]

You just love moving the goal posts don't you?

First its global warming. You can't argue that one effectively so you move on to overpopulation. Same problem. So then you move on to the resource depletion myth.

Is there any tale of doom and gloom you don't buy into?

[Fransisco]

And while I'm dissecting that which keeps you up at night.

<blockquote>
Keep digging deeper guys because <b>your</b> so far down the well of stupidity you cant crawl out no matter what you say.
</blockquote>


I believe you meant to say "you're" as in, you are so far down the well, not "your" as in your mother.

[FarmRanger]

I just about spit on my keyboard, warn us when you are going to make a funny and I'll put my water glass away. yo momma rofl

my comment cp - What francisco said.

[wedino]

Fran is revealing some facts. I've yet to see a single fact from you, CP.

[winwin]

Tom,I still say enviro extremists have taken all the tenets of a religious faith.

And you well know the fanatic CWB believers will disregard all the evidence which contradicts their chosen beliefs in order to drink the kool-aid.

Problem is WE have to drink it too,whether we believe or not.Cwb:false God,using force.

The enviro extremists want us to live miserably in order to secure some kind of after-life.Thats why I say they are both religions.Wanting monopolies.

[cottonpicken]

Facts?
You must all know what a section of land looks like.
You must all be able to picture 5.7 acres in your head.Take a look out your window and use what little imgination you have.Global warming and over-population are DIRECTLY connected.

There are over 6.5 billion people on the planet.
What we do does impact the environment.That FACT is so blindingly obvious.

Win your religious anology is completly backward.
I'd bet 1000 dollars that environmentalist are much more prone to be NOT religious.
But since you cant even grasp the concept of a monoply i guess it would be hard to contemplate much.

[FarmRanger]

Gaia worship fits the definition of a religion.

Yes, cp, those are indeed facts. Let’s create a computer model, input those facts and extrapolate 100 years into the future. Leave out any facts that might skew the data away from desired result. Don’t worry if the model doesn’t accurately predict what is happening now from past data, we’ll keep changing the parameters as we go to make the model fit any new data. Browbeat, attack the character of, and deny funding for anyone who points out any flaws in our methodology, or supply data that contradicts our model predictions. If they’d just shut up and take a share in the payola, instead of following scientific methodology, life would be a lot easier. In the meantime we can marginalize those who still want to practice objective science; call them Denyers, on the payroll of X corporation. Then claim that the scientific debate is over so that we can get on with enacting expensive solutions that solidify our future funding sources to solve the crisis we’ve modeled.

As time passes and the crisis doesn’t come to pass, take all credit for averting the disaster. Meanwhile, it gives time to think up the next impending disaster that only we can solve.

Climate changes, lets make a buck on it!

Reminds me of the Mayan priests who had solar eclipses precisely calculated and used the information to manipulate the population into believing that the priest himself shut the sun off to demonstrate his power. Not an exact analogy as I don’t believe IPCC really have a clue what the climate will do, but they know that climate change is historically demonstrable and that it will in all likelihood continue in the future.

Cp, if you want to start a thread on overpopulation, do it, but it’s not directly related to Y2Kyoto.

[silverback]

It is a FACT that you are obsessed with convincing us that what you believe is correct.

If you think that insulting anybody that doesn't follow your your line of thought is helpful to your argument, then the fact is that you need help.

If you are so worried about overpopulation "facts", what do you propose to do about it?