"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 39 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-06-2007, 11:56 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Bill Sornson wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Wont need to, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

>> Correction. Bill Baka is our resident /quintessential/ bull**** artist.

>> Bill "credit where credit's due" S.

> I might just pass on that

You cant.

> but I suggest you read some of the scientific data on what happens when population exceeds
> resources.

Never happened with humans in modern times.

> Give it about 10 years and see what happens.

Dont need to, we've seen a dramatic improvement on that stuff in the last half century.

We used to see famine due to drought etc.

We dont anymore except when the area is ravaged by civil chaos and civil war now.

Even tho the population has increased significantly over the last half century.

02-07-2007, 12:07 AM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> Mark Hickey wrote
>>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>>>> Mark Hickey wrote
>>>>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

>>>>>>> If we mess the planet up enough then it will be very hard to
>>>>>>> produce food for even a few million. No food ==== no people.

>>>>>> Errrr, perhaps you could explain the science behind that.
>>>>>> Considering that we're using only a portion of the available
>>>>>> land to produce plenty of food for a few BILLION people, I'm
>>>>>> having a bit of a problem seeing how we're going to take 99.9%
>>>>>> of the available land out of production. Or maybe "only' 99%
>>>>>> gone with a 10% yield for what remains?

>>>>>> I think we've found our new Chicken Little, folks... ;-)

>>>>> Ahhh, Mark, you need to go back to school and work on your math.
>>>>> We will probably hit about 9 billion before someone in power
>>>>> realizes that "growth" is not a good thing.

>>>> The population of the earth will top out at 9 to 10 billion,
>>>> according to the projections. With the wealth and prosperity that the third world is starting
>>>> to get via globalization comes the desire to do things other than make babies, apparently.

>>>>> As far as available land, what kind of crop can you
>>>> plant in the Himalayas? All that land going to waste.

>>>> You didn't answer my question. You predicted that 99.9% of the
>>>> world's food-producing capability was going to go away. I'm still
>>>> curious what your thought process was on that one. And I've been
>>>> in the Himalayas - they grow plenty (including poppies and pot).

>>> That wasn't a question that really deserved an answer.

>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>> Corse it required an answer.

> What bull****?

That bull****.

> As soon as some real estate developer gets his hands on good property he will build as many houses
> as he can cram onto what used to be good farm land.

Irrelevant to that stupid 99.9% claim you spewed.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to use google maps
and see that has happened to **** all of the world land mass.

> All the corn fields that I used to play in as a child are now housing, 3 houses in 14 years, and
> they are all developed.

Irrelevant to that stupid 99.9% claim you spewed.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to use google maps
and see that has happened to **** all of the world land mass.

> The food generating capacity is going down,

Have fun explaining how come we used to see periodic endemic famine
only half a century ago, and now we dont see that anymore, except
when the country has degenerated into civil war and civil chaos, even
tho the total population has increased dramatically over that time.

We dont see it in India, China, Russia, etc etc etc anymore.

> like it or not.

Pathetic.

>>> It should be obvious that more people will build more buildings and thus there will be less land
>>> available.

>> And even someone as stupid as you should be able to use
>> google earth and noticed that even with an increase from 6B
>> to 10B, there is still plenty of land suitable for growing food on.

> You're calling me stupid?

Nope, just rubbing your nose in the fact that you are stupid.

> That rates as laughable.

We'll see...

> Just because I see in terms of reality

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

> does not make me stupid.

Your terminal stupidity does tho.

> I think like it is a chess game, many moves in advance, and the cause and effect conundrum.

See above.

>>> The oceans are getting over fished so that resource will soon run out.

>> Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

> Hey, El stupido, it's reality.

Like hell it is on runing out any time soon.

> Too bad you can't comprehend it.

Pathetic.

>>> Do you expect we will farm the moon or something?

>> Wont need to, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

> Will need to do something,

Have fun explaining how we managed to handle the last half century fine,
with a very substantial improvement in the tiny number starving to death.

> and you should know the moon scenario was just a well deserved poke at you.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

02-07-2007, 12:13 AM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> dgk <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>>>> Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

>>>>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide and euthenasia, there's
>>>>>> not much we can do about the population.

>>>>>> Are those options acceptable to you?

>>>>> How about doing away with tax breaks for more than one child per
>>>>> person? No deductions. Maybe we stop "family" insurance plans and
>>>>> charge for each kid. Folks with 4 kids pay more than folks with 1.

>>>> None of those things have much effect countrywide.

>>> Yes they would.

>> Have fun explaining how come its never worked yet.

> People resist taxes like the plague.

Have fun explaining how come its never worked yet.

> China is doing it,

No they arent.

> but they don't count since they are Communist and do whatever they want.

Pathetic.

> I believe in Europe they are exercising self control on the birth rate.

More fool you. What has actually happened is what has happened right
thruout the modern first world and the second world too, economic
progress sees the birth rate drop to below replacement level.

>>> People notice taxes pretty quickly.

>> They clearly dont when its never worked yet.

> The idea of taxing those who overpopulate has never been considered by those in power for fear of
> not getting re-elected.

Wrong, as always.

> Politicians definitely worry more about their careers than the effects on both their country and
> the world.

So your hare brained scheme can never fly, stupid.

>> And they get to give the politicians that do what they dont like tax wise the bums rush at the
>> ballot box anyway.

> To bad we don't have smarter voters then.

We dont need them on that when every single country where the
voters get to give those bums the bums rush at the ballot box isnt
even self replacing now on population if you take out immigration.

02-07-2007, 12:17 AM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> dgk wrote
>>>> Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

>>>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions,
>>>>> genocide and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population. Are those options
>>>>> acceptable to you?

>>>> How about doing away with tax breaks for more than one child per
>>>> person? No deductions. Maybe we stop "family" insurance plans and
>>>> charge for each kid. Folks with 4 kids pay more than folks with 1.

>>> I put that up as a method about every 6 months. Why should a
>>> childless couple have to pay for new schools and overcrowding when the idiots who have 5--10
>>> kids get the big tax breaks? 2 kids is the break even point so that should be where tax breaks
>>> for kids stops at. The third kid should put you at the 1 kid tax point, and 4 puts you down to
>>> no kids, 5 puts you at no kids and 6 puts you at single. 7 or more should be taxed like negative
>>> deductions. That would stop it if any government official had the nards to propose it.

>> No it wouldnt, any govt stupid enough to try that would get the bums rush at the next election,
>> guaranteed, they know that and that is why they aint that stupid.

> There is a fine line between stupidity and elected officials doing
> what they know is bad for the country versus getting re-elected.

No there isnt when anyone with a clue has noticed that every single
country where they get to give the bums the bums rush at the ballot box
isnt even self replacing population wise now if you take out immigration.

> Anyone else notice the band width wasted on this topic?
> I'm kill filing this and other cross posted topics in the morning.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Quintessential pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist indeed.

02-07-2007, 12:31 AM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>>>> no spam wrote

>>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many decisions.

>>>> Bull****. All the decisions the last one made were his hobby horse,
>>>> most obviously with pumping out new saints at one hell of a rate
>>>> and jumping into bed with non christians etc and the mindlessly
>>>> silly maintenance of the ban on birth control etc and appointing
>>>> so many new cardinals that were to his liking etc.

>>> So the Pope can just tell the Cardinals to "Buzz off?"?

>> Yep, and the one that followed John 23 did just that.

>>>>> It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.

>>>> You havent got a clue how that operation works.

>>> Neither do you.

>> We'll see...

>>> The Vatican is pretty much a closed society when it comes to the inner workings.

>> Pigs arse it is. We can see what the last one did decisions wise and its obvious that those were
>> his hobby horses, not imposed on him by the cardinals.

>> AND he pulled them into line on some issues, most obviously
>> with child molesting by priests. Pity that was decades too late.

> If it was truly his decision than I applaud him.

Corse it was.

No one with a clue applauds how long it took him.

>>>> That stupid pig ignorant line doesnt explain how things change
>>>> so radically between popes, mostly obviously with John 23 etc.

>>>>> What exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil war??

>>>> None of the above. It was a stupid misguided idea that all they had
>>>> to do was get rid of Saddam and all those stupid ragheads would be
>>>> celebrating his demise and would welcome the yanks with open arms.

>>> You sort of made my point for me.

>> Like hell I did.

>>> Never get between two religions.

>> Nothing to do with religion, those fools demanded the
>> yanks get out of their country within days of the invasion.

>> Hell of a contrast to what happened in germany and japan post WW2.

> Yes,
> But back then it was 2 actual military powers fighting for world dominance and not just their
> religion.

Saddam was never about religion.

>> Those stupid ragheads were so stupid they looted
>> everything in sight as soon they could get away with that.

> That is typical even here, as the police have been seeing in New Orleans.

Nothing like the same scale or the same places looted either.

>>>> The US has never ever had a ****ing clue about even the most basic foreign policy stuff.

>>> Kind of true, being the big military and things.

>> So stupid that they didnt even notice Pearl Harbour coming.

> I think FDR did see it coming

Like hell he did. He cut them off from US oil because of what they
did to Nanking and essentially PRODUCED Pearl Harbour himself
when they decided that the only feasible approach was to invade SE
asia to get control of Indonesian oil before they ran out completely.

> and built up our fleet in the Pacific just to bait the Japanese into doing something as stupid as
> Pearl harbor to get all Americans on the same track.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont actually
have a ****ing clue about why the Japs did what they did.

Or anything else at all, either.

> He was smart enough to have the aircraft carriers out on maneuvers most of the time.

Pig ignorant drivel. If he knew that was coming, why werent
the battleships out on maneuvers most of the time too ?

> As far as whether Bush saw 9/11 coming or not is a bigger question. He could have known it was
> coming in one form or another,

Like hell he could. No one, including those who did that,
realised that the two towers were so vulnerable to that result.

> or just been so dumb he was clueless.

No one realised that it would be so easy to hijack so many planes simultaneously.

> Either way, it had the same effect, outraging Americans so much that they gave him the green light
> on Iraq, which
> was not proved to be the actual source of the terrorists.

No one cared what the actual source of the terrorists was.

> I could have been Iran but it is now a hopeless quagmire suck us dry for war spending.

Yep, his dad had much more of a clue. He's just a stupid ape.

> His budget is interesting in that his biggest request was war funding, and cutting social programs
> and education funding. Even if the unlikely happens and we get out of this war somehow,

Corse they'll get out sometime, just like with Vietnam.

> the arab world is still going to look at us with suspicion.

They always did, even before that.

02-07-2007, 12:43 AM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

>>>>> and we will be long gone when the **** hits the fan.

>>>> The **** wont be hitting any fan.

>>>> The most that will happen is that things adjust, even if we do
>>>> see temperatures rise by 10C and sea levels rise by 100M,
>>>> just like we handled that fine when it happened previously.

>>>>> It's the American way.

>>>> America hadnt even been invented then, stupid.

>>> If you can't even punctuate hadn't then I won't argue with you.

>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> As opposed to you, who couldn't think your way out, even with an instruction manual?

Pathetic, cant even manage its own lines.

>>> I think that one line proves which end the 'stupid' is on.

>> Your pathetic excuse for bull**** in spades, stupid.

> I'm giving up arguing with small minds and fixed opinions.
> Bye.

Thanks for running up that white flag.

Pity it fools absolutely no one at all, as always.

02-07-2007, 04:26 AM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> You didn't answer my question. You predicted that 99.9% of the
>> world's food-producing capability was going to go away. I'm still
>> curious what your thought process was on that one. And I've been in
>> the Himalayas - they grow plenty (including poppies and pot).
>
>That wasn't a question that really deserved an answer. It should be
>obvious that more people will build more buildings and thus there will
>be less land available.

Bill, pardon me for saying so, but LOL. I'd suggest using Mapquest or
Google Earth and start zooming out from the city of your choice using
the satellite view. Are you so stuck in the city that you think they
take up a big percentage of the available land? I'm trying to imagine
the number of people that would necessitate building on 99.9% of the
available land. Just a thumbnail estimate would make that number
somewhere in the trillions.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-07-2007, 04:28 AM

jdoe wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:08:30 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Well, that's the reasoning for allowing states to continue charging
>>tolls on interstates back in the '50s, but one would think that by now
>>those bonds have long since been paid off.
>>
>>
>you're right most of the bonds have been paid off but when have you
>ever seen a politician give up a cash cow like toll roads are?
>
>

CT did.

02-07-2007, 04:35 AM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put
>a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The
>other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and
>try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG.

I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the
verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a
flat highway). Interested in taking that bet?

>It can't happen with a new car since they are all going to front wheel
>drive.

Why not? The losses associated with turning the driving force to the
wheels 90 degrees through the differential is one of the main reasons
we don't have rear wheel drive cars any more (with the obvious few
exceptions). Seems obvious to me that if you can get 40mpg out of a
rear drive Falcon, you should be able to get more than that out of a
FWD version. Heh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-07-2007, 07:18 AM

>>> My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because of
>>> the weekly donation issue. It seemed to them that the church was out
>>> for the money and people were trying to buy their way into Heaven.
>>
>> Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic
>> church, in most non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true
>> teachings of Christ and therefore are not a true Christian church. A
>> couple of quick examples: It teaches you need someone to stand
>> between you and Christ (you have to confess your sins to the priest),
>> you pray to people (Mary, Saint this or that), the believe that there
>> have been many 'perfect' people (they call them popes. Also it
>> teaches you can 'buy' and/or work your way into Heaven, to most true
>> Christians would find this very close to blasphemy.
>
>> True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't following
>> them then it doesn't matter what name they use) those rules are: Love God
>> completely and love your neighbor as you love yourself.
>
> How odd that that fool that was stupid enough to get
> nailed up by the romans didnt say anything like that.

Your ignorance is showing, where do you think it comes from?

>
>> One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if the
>> people don't want to hear or believe then we are to knock the dust off
>> our feet and never visit them again. Its up to them at that point.
>
> Or that either.

Nearly a direct quote from the 'Christian manual'.

>> As I have told many people talking about religions, any religion which
>> has to use force to keep its people from hearing other preachings is most
>> likely a false religion because a religion of a God that could make the
>> universe can easily stand up to a few words or thoughts.
>
> Pathetic, really.

False religion and false religious teachers are the problem. FYI, a
religion does not need to believe in an all powerful god. Many of them
'worship' a man or idea.