Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A True Environmentalist Whacko  
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1439 times:

What can I say? Read the story below...

http://www.seguingazette.com/story.l...sso?ewcd=3a54ecf401da6005&page=all

Oops.....luckily I managed to save a copy of the story before it disappeared, which was headline on Drudge moments ago.

It appears that there was a recent speech given at the Texas Academy of Science during which a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the killing of 90% of the human beings via airborne ebola. Most in the audience cheered wildly and some even now said they "worship" him.

The speaker, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, asked that his comments not be videotaped or recorded in any way....which is very unusual since all previous lectures have been taped. He claimed that mankind is not ready to hear about this subject (I disagree strongly).

Many of the world's elite have been talking like this for 20 years.....and considering the very recent killings and mysterious disappearances of many of the world's predominant microbiologists....perhaps something worthy of alarm is on the horizon.

The story linked above, by citizen scientist Forrest M. Mims III, is copyrighted and I don't know if it is acceptable to post it in it's entirety, especially now that the link to it has evaporated.

I think this is so monumentally important that I would love nothing more than to re-print it right here for all to read. I will see if I can gain permission to re-print it verbatim with full credits.

67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21460 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1436 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Thread starter):
mysterious disappearances of many of the world's predominant microbiologists

Such as...?

Oh, I see - I'm sure Dr. Evil must be behind it all...!  crazy 


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Okay Klaus.....I figured you'd be the first to post a colorless remark, will miracles never cease?

I have obtained permission to re-print the article from Mr. Mims. Here it is in it's entirety.



31 March 2006

Meeting Doctor Doom

Forrest M. Mims III

Copyright 2006 by Forrest M. Mims III.

Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was said. Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul. Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the speaker's remarks.

If the professional community has lost its sense of moral outrage when one if their own openly calls for the slow and painful extermination of over 5 billion human beings, then it falls upon the amateur community to be the conscience of science.

Forrest, who is a member of the Texas Academy and chairs its Environmental Science Section, told me he would be unable to describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The Citizen Scientist . Therefore, to preclude a possible conflict of interest, I have directed Forrest to describe what he observed and his reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal publication schedule. Comments may be sent to Backscatter . Shawn Carlson, Ph.D., Founder and Executive Director, Society for Amateur Scientists.

There is always something special about science meetings. The 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont on 3-5 March 2006 was especially exciting for me, because a student and his professor presented the results of a DNA study I suggested to them last year. How fulfilling to see the baldcypress ( Taxodium distichum ) leaves we collected last summer and my tree ring photographs transformed into a first class scientific presentation that's nearly ready to submit to a scientific journal (Brian Iken and Dr. Deanna McCullough, "Bald Cypress of the Texas Hill Country: Taxonomically Unique?" 109th Meeting of the Texas Academy of Science Program and Abstracts [ PDF ], Poster P59, p. 84, 2006).

But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.

This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us. Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor, Pianka's strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in my mind. Suddenly I forgot that I was a member of the Texas Academy of Science and chairman of its Environmental Science Section. Instead, I grabbed a notepad so I could take on the role of science reporter.

One of Pianka's earliest points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered, “What good are you?”

Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, “We're no better than bacteria!”

Pianka then began laying out his concerns about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth. He presented a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet. He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it's too late.

Saving the Earth with Ebola

Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures . Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.

He then showed solutions for reducing the world's population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse . War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.

Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets.

AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.

After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”

With his slide of human skulls towering on the screen behind him, Professor Pianka was deadly serious. The audience that had been applauding some of his statements now sat silent.

After a dramatic pause, Pianka returned to politics and environmentalism. But he revisited his call for mass death when he reflected on the oil situation.

“And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.” So the oil crisis alone may require eliminating two-third's of the world's population.

How soon must the mass dying begin if Earth is to be saved? Apparently fairly soon, for Pianka suggested he might be around when the killer disease goes to work. He was born in 1939, and his lengthy obituary appears on his web site .

When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.

Questions for Dr. Doom

Then came the question and answer session, in which Professor Pianka stated that other diseases are also efficient killers.

The audience laughed when he said, “You know, the bird flu's good, too.” They laughed again when he proposed, with a discernable note of glee in his voice that, “We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.”

After noting that the audience did not represent the general population, a questioner asked, "What kind of reception have you received as you have presented these ideas to other audiences that are not representative of us?"

Pianka replied, "I speak to the converted!"

Pianka responded to more questions by condemning politicians in general and Al Gore by name, because they do not address the population problem and "...because they deceive the public in every way they can to stay in power."

He spoke glowingly of the police state in China that enforces their one-child policy. He said, "Smarter people have fewer kids." He said those who don't have a conscience about the Earth will inherit the Earth, "...because those who care make fewer babies and those that didn't care made more babies." He said we will evolve as uncaring people, and "I think IQs are falling for the same reason, too."

With this, the questioning was over. Immediately almost every scientist, professor and college student present stood to their feet and vigorously applauded the man who had enthusiastically endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population. Some even cheered. Dozens then mobbed the professor at the lectern to extend greetings and ask questions. It was necessary to wait a while before I could get close enough to take some photographs (Fig. 1).

I was assigned to judge a paper in a grad student competition after the speech. On the way, three professors dismissed Pianka as a crank. While waiting to enter the competition room, a group of a dozen Lamar University students expressed outrage over the Pianka speech.

Yet five hours later, the distinguished leaders of the Texas Academy of Science presented Pianka with a plaque in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. When the banquet hall filled with more than 400 people responded with enthusiastic applause, I walked out in protest.

Corresponding with Dr. Doom

Recently I exchanged a number of e-mails with Pianka. I pointed out to him that one might infer his death wish was really aimed at Africans, for Ebola is found only in Central Africa. He replied that Ebola does not discriminate, kills everyone and could spread to Europe and the the Americas by a single infected airplane passenger.

In his last e-mail, Pianka wrote that I completely fail to understand his arguments. So I did a check and found verification of my interpretation of his remarks on his own web site. In a student evaluation of a 2004 course he taught, one of Professor Pianka's students wrote, "Though I agree that convervation [sic] biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola [sic] is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness." (Go here and scroll down to just before the Fall 2005 evaluation section near the end.)

Yet the majority of his student reviews were favorable, with one even saying, “ I worship Dr. Pianka .”

The 45-minute lecture before the Texas Academy of Science converted a university biology senior into a Pianka disciple, who then published a blog that seriously supports Pianka's mass death wish.

Dangerous Times

Let me now remove my reporter's hat for a moment and tell you what I think. We live in dangerous times. The national security of many countries is at risk. Science has become tainted by highly publicized cases of misconduct and fraud.

Must now we worry that a Pianka-worshipping former student might someday become a professional biologist or physician with access to the most deadly strains of viruses and bacteria? I believe that airborne Ebola is unlikely to threaten the world outside of Central Africa. But scientists have regenerated the 1918 Spanish flu virus that killed 50 million people. There is concern that small pox might someday return. And what other terrible plagues are waiting out there in the natural world to cross the species barrier and to which scientists will one day have access?

Meanwhile, I still can't get out of my mind the pleasant spring day in Texas when a few hundred scientists of the Texas Academy of Science gave a standing ovation for a speaker who they heard advocate for the slow and tortuous death of over five billion human beings.

Forrest M. Mims III is Chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science, and the editor of The Citizen Scientist. He and his science are featured online at www.forrestmims.org and www.sunandsky.org . The views expressed herein are his own and do not represent the official views of the Texas Academy of Science or the Society for Amateur Scientists.

Copyright 2006 by Forrest M. Mims III.


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
Such as...?

[Originally published in Canada'a Globe and Mail....]


Scientists' deaths are under the microscope



Printer Friendly version


It's a tale only the best conspiracy theorist could dream up.

Eleven microbiologists mysteriously dead over the span of just five months. Some of them world leaders in developing weapons-grade biological plagues. Others the best in figuring out how to stop millions from dying because of biological weapons. Still others, experts in the theory of bioterrorism.

Throw in a few Russian defectors, a few nervy U.S. biotech companies, a deranged assassin or two, a bit of Elvis, a couple of Satanists, a subtle hint of espionage, a big whack of imagination, and the plot is complete, if a bit reminiscent of James Bond.

The first three died in the space of just over a week in November. Benito Que, 52, was an expert in infectious diseases and cellular biology at the Miami Medical School. Police originally suspected that he had been beaten on Nov. 12 in a carjacking in the medical school's parking lot. Strangely enough, though, his body showed no signs of a beating. Doctors then began to suspect a stroke.

Just four days after Dr. Que fell unconscious came the mysterious disappearance of Don Wiley, 57, one of the foremost microbiologists in the United States. Dr. Wiley, of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Harvard University, was an expert on how the immune system responds to viral attacks such as the classic doomsday plagues of HIV, ebola and influenza.

He had just bought tickets to take his son to Graceland the following day. Police found his rental car on a bridge outside Memphis, Tenn. His body was later found in the Mississippi River. Forensic experts said he may have had a dizzy spell and have fallen off the bridge.

Just five days after that, the world-class microbiologist and high-profile Russian defector Valdimir Pasechnik, 64, fell dead. The pathologist who did the autopsy, and who also happened to be associated with Britain's spy agency, concluded he died of a stroke.

Dr. Pasechnik, who defected to the United Kingdom in 1989, played a huge role in Russian biowarfare and helped to figure out how to modify cruise missiles to deliver the agents of mass biological destruction.

The next two deaths came four days apart in December. Robert Schwartz, 57, was stabbed and slashed with what police believe was a sword in his farmhouse in Leesberg, Va. His daughter, who identifies herself as a pagan high priestess, and several of her fellow pagans have been charged.

Dr. Schwartz was an expert in DNA sequencing and pathogenic micro-organisms, who worked at the Center for Innovative Technology in Herndon, Va.

Four days later, Nguyen Van Set, 44, died at work in Geelong, Australia, in a laboratory accident. He entered an airlocked storage lab and died from exposure to nitrogen. Other scientists at the animal diseases facility of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization had just come to fame for discovering a virulent strain of mousepox, which could be modified to affect smallpox.

Then in February, the Russian microbiologist Victor Korshunov, 56, an expert in intestinal bacteria of children around the world, was bashed over the head near his home in Moscow. Five days later the British microbiologist Ian Langford, 40, was found dead in his home near Norwich, England, naked from the waist down and wedged under a chair. He was an expert in environmental risks and disease.

Two weeks later, two prominent microbiologists died in San Francisco. Tanya Holzmayer, 46, a Russian who moved to the U.S. in 1989, focused on the part of the human molecular structure that could be affected best by medicine.

She was killed by fellow microbiologist Guyang (Matthew) Huang, 38, who shot her seven times when she opened the door to a pizza delivery. Then he shot himself.

The final two deaths came one day after the other in March. David Wynn-Williams, 55, a respected astrobiologist with the British Antarctic Survey, who studied the habits of microbes that might survive in outer space, died in a freak road accident near his home in Cambridge, England. He was hit by a car while he was jogging.

The following day, Steven Mostow, 63, known as Dr. Flu for his expertise in treating influenza, and a noted expert in bioterrorism, died when the airplane he was piloting crashed near Denver.

So what does any of it mean?

"Statistically, what are the chances?" wondered a prominent North American microbiologist reached last night at an international meeting of infectious-disease specialists in Chicago.

Janet Shoemaker, director of public and scientific affairs of the American Society for Microbiology in Washington, D.C., pointed out yesterday that there are about 20,000 academic researchers in microbiology in the U.S. Still, not all of these are of the elevated calibre of those recently deceased.

She had a chilling, final thought. When microbiologists die in a lab, there's a way of taking note of the deaths and adding them up. When they die in freakish accidents outside the lab, nobody keeps track.

Suspicious deaths

The sudden and suspicious deaths of 11 of the world's leading microbiologists.

Who they were:

1. Nov. 12, 2001:

Benito Que was said to have been beaten in a Miami parking lot and died later.

2. Nov. 16, 2001:

Don C. Wiley went missing. Was found Dec. 20. Investigators said he got dizzy on a Memphis bridge and fell to his death in a river.

3. Nov. 21, 2001:

Vladimir Pasechnik, former high-level Russian microbiologist who defected in 1989 to the U.K. apparently died from a stroke.

4. Dec. 10, 2001:

Robert M. Schwartz was stabbed to death in Leesberg, Va. Three Satanists have been arrested.

5. Dec. 14, 2001:

Nguyen Van Set died in an airlock filled with nitrogen in his lab in Geelong, Australia.

6. Feb. 9, 2002:

Victor Korshunov had his head bashed in near his home in Moscow.

7. Feb. 14, 2002:

Ian Langford was found partially naked and wedged under a chair in Norwich, England.

8. 9. Feb. 28, 2002:

San Francisco resident Tanya Holzmayer was killed by a microbiologist colleague, Guyang Huang, who shot her as she took delivery of a pizza and then apparently shot himself.

10. March 24, 2002:

David Wynn-Williams died in a road accident near his home in Cambridge, England.

11. March 25, 2002:

Steven Mostow of the Colorado Health Sciences Centre, killed in a plane he was flying near Denver.





© The Globe and Mail. Republished with permission. All Rights Reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or republished or redistributed without the prior written consent of the copyright holder.


User currently onlineAgill From Sweden, joined Feb 2004, 1011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1387 times:

Would be funny to hand out 100 glasses of coolaid to the auditorium there, 90 of which have poison in them. I wonder if they would drink, or if they would prove themselves as hypocrites

User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1361 times:

Yes Agill, I wonder how many would take a drink? I mean, it's for the good of the Earth after all  Yeah sure. Good call my friend.

Methinks that the cheering academics believe they should be spared extermination considering their support of the notion....like the true sheep that they are.....it's disgusting, immoral, and above all else criminal.

The silence on this thread is deafening, isn't it? One of the scholars that many evolutionistas hold up as authority figures has now said that he believes over 6 BILLION people should soon die a horrible death to save the Earth.

Thank GOD this man is not in control of the levers of society (as far as we know, and hope)....for if he was he alone would make Nero, Mao, Hitler and all the rest look like angels in comparison. Why not just line up 9 out of 10 people and shoot them in the head? At least it would be painless, right? World wars have been fought to remove people such as this....and yet this thread goes silent? I am starting to wonder about you people (actually I have been wondering all along and this just makes me scratch my head all the harder).

Whaddya say Klaus? Does the cat have your tongue? Do you support this Doctor's ideas to fix the Earth's problems....albeit with a more humane approach perhaps? I'd be interested to hear your take on it. We have heard enough "rising ocean level" scare-mongering and Creation bashing....time to lay it all out brother.


User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1359 times:

I wonder if he would like to inhale some of that Ebola himself? After all, he's no better than bacteria... (If you don't understand the context, RTDA)

[Edited 2006-04-03 03:49:47]


Up, up and away!
User currently offlineDC10GUY From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1341 times:

I'm confused. Is someone killing the micro biologists to prevent the 90% reduction ? A big asteroid is going to take care of the problem anyway ... right ? I think I would rather be hit by the asteroid then the come down with ebola ...


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21460 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1339 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 5):
The silence on this thread is deafening, isn't it?

Nothing to kill anybody's interest like extensive quotes heavy on innuendo with numerous insinuations in need of a fact check. Due to time constraints I'll have to leave the great conspiracy theory to others this time, but I have my doubts that the deaths quoted are statistically significant.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 5):
Whaddya say Klaus? Does the cat have your tongue? Do you support this Doctor's ideas to fix the Earth's problems....albeit with a more humane approach perhaps?

He's not the first scientist to develop outright weird or shocking opinions outside of his area of expertise - you might note, however, that that is what they are: Personal opinions.

And no, for the record, I do not advocate such a primitive sledge-hammer approach. Mass murder is not an option; We've got better (if less spectacular) means to counter our problems and challenges. Without delving deeper into the matter I wouldn't be surprised if it was yet another case of a voluntary provocation in order to gain attention.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 5):
I'd be interested to hear your take on it. We have heard enough "rising ocean level" scare-mongering and Creation bashing....time to lay it all out brother.

Unfortunately for you, both rising ocean levels and evolution are heavily supported by evidence and are not just mere opinions like the one you've been quoting above.

These distinctions are important if you want to be taken halfway seriously.


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1328 times:

Klaus, I am relieved that you feel the way you do about this doctor's viewpoint. Perhaps he was trying to garner attention....and if that is what he was attempting to do he succeeded.

I'd love to talk again about the ocean levels....but I thoroughly refuted those in the last thread about the subject using straight up arithmetic. However here is not the place to re-hash that. Species specialization is supported by some evidence, not heavily mind you.....but as to it being a source for human beings....evolution falls flat on it's face.

I must say though that this doctor may be a "crank" or off his rocker, but his views have been elucidated by some far more powerful than he....some of those could and I believe would attempt to pull this extermination off if given the chance. I think we, as humanity, need to pull our collective heads out and make sure they never have that chance.

BTW, the reason I posted the Globe and Mail piece was to give a little credence to my comment about the dead and missing microbiologists. I have a bad feeling that their untimely exit is tied to this extermination plan somehow. By removing those most capable of stopping whatever is released to "do the deed"....would give the biological culprit more room to flourish.


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1325 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 2):
I figured you'd be the first to post a colorless remark, will miracles never cease?

His remark was hardly colorless...he merely asked for a statement of fact to be provided about your claims (which you hence provided).

The professors claims that the world would be better off without 90% of the humans is hardly far fetched - it is logical to assume that without humans on this planet to limit the flow of rivers, melt the polar ice caps and generally wreak environmental havoc upon this planet that the earth would be in far better shape today than it actually is.

That being said, however, this planet obviously can facilitate life and whatever that life may bring to it, so that could be natures balance as well. The key thing about this speech obviously was his assertions that the ebola virus should be used for populicide on 9 out of 10 persons on the earth.

I disagree with him on that as well!

But, having an opinion like that is perfectly legal, and it is hardly "monumentally important" as you say it is. While this guy can think whatever he wants, it is doubtful that anyone in the position of responsibility over these types of virus's would ever let anyone like him or his conteporaries anywhere near such a weapon.

He does bring up a very good point about humans and this world we live on.

The direction that the world is heading now, a Malthusian Catastrophe can be considered a genuine threat to human existence, and population control cannot be ignored as we continue to reproduce and move into the future. There is a finite amount of space on this earth and we have to remember that there are already seven billion people occupying it...

If we can assume only 1/3 out of all of those people reproduces in his or her lifetime, that creates 2.33 billion people in a span of some 100 years, and then perhaps 1/3 of that 9 billion people reproduce and there's another 3 billion, and within 300 years this planet could have 16 billion people occupying and over-consuming the resources it provides. Consider that in the past, 160 acres of farm land crops were able to feed one person...

My 1/3 postulate/thereom thing is not science, and from the looks of it would be a worst case scenario sort of thing. But the fact is it could happen, and the population of this planet could easily spin out of control, necessitating an urgent need for more space.

[Edited 2006-04-03 04:43:50]


Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21460 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1311 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 9):
I'd love to talk again about the ocean levels....but I thoroughly refuted those in the last thread about the subject using straight up arithmetic.

You did no such thing. You simply claimed that you "couldn't believe" there was enough ice on the planet to raise the sea levels more than a little bit. Unfortunately, the mass of ice on the planet - which is easily checked with a bit of googling - is easily enough to raise global sea levels by several tens of meters should it melt (which it is doing, at increasing speed).

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 9):
Species specialization is supported by some evidence, not heavily mind you.....but as to it being a source for human beings....evolution falls flat on it's face.

Rubbish. Evolution has made thousands of successful predictions, which is the ultimate measure of the quality of a theory. To take just one of them: When molecular genetics emerged, the theory of evolution predicted that the apparent relations between species would have to be consistent with the relations between their genetic material.

And the predictions - which would have to have failed miserably if evolution was to be even just slightly off - turned out to be highly consistent with subsequently verified evidence.

Creationism, on the other hand, doesn't make any predictions, especially no successful ones. That makes it an unverifiable and thus irrelevant theory. Which always loses to a successful one like the one about evolution.

Again, your arguments merely come down to "if I can't understand it, it can't be true!". But again, that is not so.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 9):
I have a bad feeling that their untimely exit is tied to this extermination plan somehow.

What gives you that idea? People die. Scientists are people. So scientist die, too!

Unless you can bring an actually statistically significant anomaly of deaths in just this one group which is not just tied to their (sometimes hazardous) field of work, I don't see much evidence here, let alone for an evil conspiracy to murder them all (what for?).


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1294 times:

Hi Planespotting,

I don't think I used the right wording when I said "colorless"...I suppose I should have just said something like "it figures that Klaus would jump in first", as he usually does.

The article was monumentally important to me at least....and it's content should IMO be monumentally important to everyone else, especially a forum of airline lovers. It is something like this (ebola) that if it managed to spread via airliner, would not only have far reaching detrimental effects to humanity as a whole by quickly ravaging all of us in a matter of weeks...but it would bring airline operations to a quick and permanent halt worldwide.

"several 10's of meters" Klaus? Let's assume you mean a measly 20 meters of ocean rise when all of that glorious ice melts. Using simple arithmetic and the fact that the oceans cover 73% of the Earth's surface....a 20 meter rise worldwide would result (if completely melted) if the surface ice thickness was 73%/27% times 20 meters thick, distributed evenly over the entire Earth's landmass. Umm, that's 54 meters of ice my friend. I live in Texas and I surely do not live on top of 54 meters of ice. Since the polar regions occupy maybe 5% of the Earth's surface you can multiply that 54 meter figure by 20 again to get over 1000 meters high of landlocked ice at the poles to account for a 20 meter ocean rise.....dude, that is ridiculous. Damn, perhaps we can resurrect that old thread someday and continue this there.

Genes are not the be all end all determinent that accounts for differences observed in species and individuals like you and me. My genes are very similar to Buckminster Fuller's.....but that in no way means I am anything like him at all. Bucky's genes are similar to a gorilla's and that comparison is even more ridiculous. As long as you look only at the atomic, chemical, and molecular makeup of living organisms....you miss the forest because of the trees IMO. There is more to life than what can be observed in a lab.

I believe God purposefully left no physical evidence of His existence...so that His creation would need to have "faith" alone to believe. Blessed are those scientists who are willing to not close the door on what it is they cannot measure. Arrogant are those that do.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1294 times:

What this so-called ecologist advocates is unacceptable. He sounds like Hitler as to the Jews. Who wouldn't get the virus? How could you make sure you could even get close to killing 90% of human life? How could any rational person accept his proposal? Perhaps it was supposed to be an attention getting joke?
Perhaps instead of pushing the Ebola virus, this professor should encouaging people everywhere not to have more than 2 children. This would require many faiths (like Roman Catholic, Islam) and cultures all over the world to reverse or modify their beliefs as to birth contol for example. Governments could penalize people with higher taxes if they have more than 2 childeren (yes, I know, I doubt that will happen). Those ideas would probably be much more effective short and long term.


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1292 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
I believe God purposefully left no physical evidence of His existence...so that His creation would need to have "faith" alone to believe

I'm sorry...and I don't mean to step on your faith or anything, and I'm not saying anything negative about believing in God or anything like that...but that is the aboslute worst rationale ever for why there is little evidence of God on this earth...

Why then would he (or she) assume that his creation would even think that there could be something akin to a God? The notion that there has to be something "in control" of everything isn't necessarily inborn in us, and there is really no logical reason why any primitive or modern human would assume there is some sort of creator. This premise of religion and some sort of God-like figure has been instilled in humans though since at least 10,000 BC and probably before that.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1284 times:

Not surprising this nut job is from UT. I wonder how the university will handle this.


Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21460 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1274 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
The article was monumentally important to me at least....and it's content should IMO be monumentally important to everyone else

Of course he should not be allowed to execute anything like that, but I'm pretty certain he never intended to.

When viewed from the perspective of the global ecosystem, humanity is a massive catastrophy, in line with large volcanic or meteor impact events with regard to the catastrophic mass extinction of species on the planet as a result.

When looking from that perspective, drastic measures are necessary to prevent the impending breakdown of the global ecosystem, but apart from the attention-grabbing aspect of it, there is nothing that would speak for mass murder as a resolution.

We as (at least halfway) sentient species will need to modify our behaviour and our negative impact on our environment in order to prevent further deterioration.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
Since the polar regions occupy maybe 5% of the Earth's surface you can multiply that 54 meter figure by 20 again to get over 1000 meters high of landlocked ice at the poles to account for a 20 meter ocean rise.....dude, that is ridiculous.

Is it?

That shows again that your main enemy in this discussion is your limited imagination - it falls way short of reality!

Your calculations themselves are actually in the right ballpark; But the ice shields on both Greenland and Antarctica are in fact about three to four kilometers thick, accounting for a corresponding rise of the global sea levels in case they should melt down:

From Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis:

Quote:
Together, the present Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contain enough water to raise sea level by almost 70 m (Table 11.3)

(My emphasis.)

The sad thing is that you seem to systematically avoid looking at the hard facts which are known from actual measurements if there is a "risk" that they might contravene your preconceived notions.

I had presented all the relevant links to you repeatedly before. One click could have been sufficient to dispel your misconceptions, but you chose to not check them out, apparently.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
Genes are not the be all end all determinent that accounts for differences observed in species and individuals like you and me. My genes are very similar to Buckminster Fuller's.....but that in no way means I am anything like him at all.

Rubbish. Biologically (via >99% shared genes) and mentally (through very similar cultural socialization), you and he (or you and I) are almost identical except for a very thin layer of individuality on top. Of course many species are highly focused on recognizing individuals within their kind and thus on the (actually very minor) differences, but fact is that genetically, phenotypically and by almost every other measure humans are very closely related among each other. Evolutionary principles are even routinely used in forensic science, with very high accuracy and reliability.

And the same mechanisms and correlations are consistent across separate species (or among members of other species) as well, reflecting the closeness or remoteness of inter- or intra-species relationships as expected in the respective evolutionary context.

You have no leg to stand on with your claims. Again, your imagination is much more limited than reality is.

Open your mind!

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
I believe God purposefully left no physical evidence of His existence...so that His creation would need to have "faith" alone to believe.

And "He" was apparently so "successful" with that that neither the chinese nor the maya ever imagined the same god - not even remotely! - as people in the middle east did. That's a pretty strong hint that in fact nothing supernatural was going on at all.

Your claim is completely implausible and inconsistent with every observation, even with the ideas in the Bible - but highly consistent with a last-stand attempt to salvage a last rescue niche for the supernatural in the face of overwhelming evidence that gods have always just been human imaginations.

Which makes a lot of sense within the evolutionary framework, as religion was one of the earlier strategies for making sense of the physical world and organizing human society. But at least with regard to explaining the physical world, it was severely flawed and is deservedly replaced by science.

With regard to human societies the situation is somewhat different - even an imagined deity can serve a useful purpose in a society if it symbolizes a positive and constructive consensus of its "supporters" whose collective imagination creates and sustains it.

Unfortunately, the rigid claims of absoluteness and of exclusivity made by organized religions have historically ruined many if not most of them to the point where only secularism remains as a viable alternative.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1247 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
We as (at least halfway) sentient species will need to modify our behaviour and our negative impact on our environment in order to prevent further deterioration.

Let's start from the position that given the evidence in front of us - glaciers melting, temperatures rising - we are in a period of global warming. Anybody with any sense should be able to agree with that. Here's my question, however.

Scientists are proclaiming gloom and doom with regard to global warming. However, just 30 years ago, they were worried about global cooling. Since they were obviously wrong 30 years ago,why should we believe them now?

Quote:
While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21460 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17):
Scientists are proclaiming gloom and doom with regard to global warming. However, just 30 years ago, they were worried about global cooling. Since they were obviously wrong 30 years ago,why should we believe them now?

a) Same reason why you couldn't believe anyone that he could fly for several thousand years but you can buy a ticket without hesitation today: Progress in scientific research. The revolutionary developments in information, satellite and sensor technologies have triggered unprecedented progress in climatology through the past few decades.

b) Global warming can indeed result in major cooling in certain areas, notably northern Europe which is dependent on the Gulf Stream Heat Pump. Climate is a massive non-linear system with many, many tipping points which can trigger violent up- or downswings depending which of its legs you're kicking out from under it. We're rapidly moving away from a historically very stable equilibrium, that much is very clear by now. Bad time for closing our eyes and stepping on the accelerator...!


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1227 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 18):
Same reason why you couldn't believe anyone that he could fly for several thousand years but you can buy a ticket without hesitation today: Progress in scientific research. The revolutionary developments in information, satellite and sensor technologies have triggered unprecedented progress in climatology through the past few decades.

Unless progress stops today, isn't it likely that we will know far more 30 years from now than we know today, and may be looking back on the predictions made today with the same "what were they thinking about?"

I don't think we should be stepping on any accelerator. We should be stepping on the brakes. I just hope we don't do it so hard as to put us into an unintended spin out.....


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21460 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1221 times:

Of course not; But I've never understood why some people are so insistent that any attempt at an improvement was pointless anyway.

The problem with climate is exactly its complex and nonlinear nature, so exact and all-encompassing predictions are extremely difficult. But with the newer results we have a relatively solid basis (unlike a few decades before) to recognize many of the dangers in violently rocking the boat as we're doing.


User currently offlineLHMARK From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1219 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 5):
The silence on this thread is deafening, isn't it? One of the scholars that many evolutionistas hold up as authority figures has now said that he believes over 6 BILLION people should soon die a horrible death to save the Earth.

Hey, I can't afford wasting my carefully stockpile outrage every time someone says kooky things. Sounds like the good doctor has been reading too many Tom Clancy novels.

How much you wanna bet he's included in the 10% that get to live?



"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1208 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17):
Scientists are proclaiming gloom and doom with regard to global warming. However, just 30 years ago, they were worried about global cooling. Since they were obviously wrong 30 years ago,why should we believe them now?

I don't think you can look at one (albeit significant) mistake regarding climate change and therefore conclude that the next scientific position will be erroneous as well. Not that I'm convinced that the current warming trend is gloom and doom necessarily, but scientific techniques are ever improving, and scientists are trained to learn from previous mistakes.

It is of little danger to us to accept the possibility of gloom and doom and try to do what we can to prevent such an outcome, even if there is no real danger. It is, however, to our peril to conclude they've fouled this one up again and thus we do nothing if, in fact, there is danger ahead. Scientists are not necessarily supposed to be "correct" all the time. They are charged with taking what is observed and currently understood, and trying to infer deeper concepts from this knowledge base. It is an evolving process. In the case of climate change, it takes many years to put forth a theory based on suffiecient information.

For example, given what we knew about blocking the production of prostaglandins at arthritic joints back in the 1980s and early 1990s, my group synthesized hundreds of potential anti-arthritis drug candidates. As it turns out, none of them were more effective and/or safer than existing medications. Since that time however, other better drugs have been made. It takes time. My colleagues and I were not "correct" per se in our synthetic efforts, but we helped to increase the knowledge base for future breakthroughs.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
Unfortunately for you, both rising ocean levels

I thought so too, until I went back to Ecuador and noticed that the only reason the sea seemed higher was because sand was redistributed. In 30 years, I could not see a significant difference.

Quoting Planespotting (Reply 10):
My 1/3 postulate/thereom thing is not science, and from the looks of it would be a worst case scenario sort of thing. But the fact is it could happen, and the population of this planet could easily spin out of control, necessitating an urgent need for more space.

Quoting 'A Christmas Carol', way back in the 1850's, where Scrooge made a quote about the 'surplus' population. Has anything happened since then, and is the air cleaner in England since then?

There has been talk of calamities and overpopulation for decades, but no catastrophe of this nature has yet to occur. I take all of this with a grain of salt. Regardless of what could happen, I still like and want everything around me CLEAN.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21460 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1147 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 23):
I thought so too, until I went back to Ecuador and noticed that the only reason the sea seemed higher was because sand was redistributed. In 30 years, I could not see a significant difference.

The change is still in the centimeter range at this point, but already measurable. And low-lying island nations are already feeling the pinch with their ground water reserves drowning in salt water and floodings becoming more frequent.

More dramatic changes are to be expected in the future, since not just the mountaineous glaciers are receding (which they've done through the past century already), but the two large ice masses on th planet (Greenland and Antarctica) are beginning to melt and break down as well. The melting rates and shelf glacier velocities are measurably accelerating, the ice masses are known and such events have happened in the ancient past with known consequences already, so it's not a matter of too many unknowns any more if the warming trend continues.


25 Eilennaei : Where was it published?
26 Post contains images Tom in NO : I think we ought to get 007 on this case. This guy sounds like he came right out of SPECTRE. Tom at MSY
27 Post contains links Klaus : The measurement reports I've seen so far are all consistent about it. Not just, but a good starting point: Sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyc
28 Eilennaei : But you are unable to name names on any of them, is that right?
29 Klaus : No. Look at any scientific report about sea levels. I gave you several leads which provide ample information and further leads. Just point and click.
30 777236ER : I bet Dr Eric R. Pianka uses a Mac.
31 Klaus : Very many scientists do - so what's your point?
32 777236ER : Pol Pot also used a Mac, if I'm not mistaken.
33 Post contains images Klaus : Possibly - but using a Mac doesn't make you a good person, just a less frustrated one...! (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, John Kerry and many other we
34 Eilennaei : Such as? Which institute?
35 Klaus : Start at the Wikipedia overview, then proceed through the links. You're a big boy; I don't need to pre-chew your food for you, now do I?
36 Post contains images 777236ER : The best you could come up with is a bunch of politicians?
37 Eilennaei : I take it then that you are unable to prove your point and provide a credible refrerence to a credible study that will prove sea level has risen univ
38 Post contains links Klaus : You started there... One of various lists: Famous Mac Users I wasn't particularly motivated to force-feed you information a) I linked to and b) is un
39 SlamClick : Interesting statement to find in this thread. I've long complained that religion has no real answers and science has no right and wrong, no good and
40 Klaus : Indeed, from the perspective of the global ecosystem there's a glimmer of hope that humanity might one day shoot itself out of the picture; But so fa
41 SlamClick : Perhaps we have a disagreement over language. In American English "catastrophic" implies bad. Not just causing great upheaval but with recognizable B
42 Klaus : No dissent regarding the term, but I wasn't speaking from a scientific point of view - I was taking the view of the global ecosystem. And if it was an
43 Eilennaei : Klaus, I know your go patronizing when you're in a tight corner. Just show me the money, if you can. Who says the sea level is 1 cm higher and how wa
44 Klaus : I already gave you a whole bunch of links. If you're too lazy to open them, I can't help you.
45 SlamClick : Klaus mein herr, it still seems to me that you are viewing the "global ecosystem" as little more than a life-support system for civilization. That ha
46 Post contains images Klaus : No, I don't. What gives you that impression? I was explicitly stepping out of the anthropocentric point of view. Humanity is only beginning to suffer
47 Post contains images CastleIsland : Maybe not, but the following statement suggests that you might have been a very good one: True. For one to opine that something is good or bad, one m
48 Eilennaei : Ok, so no 1 cm universal rise of sea level. As a matter of fact I knew this all along, the technology and statistical analysis at this stage will not
49 Post contains images Klaus : None that I'd really care to invest enough time to beat you over the head with, no. Giving you the opportunity to click and read has to suffice for n
50 Eilennaei : That comes as no surprise to me. By measuring the effects of small relative changes in the sea level that's affected by the Earth's gravitational for
51 Klaus : Just none that you can get without following a few links. I truly feel for you.
52 Post contains images SlamClick : Aw shucks! Does that mean you're all contrite about gossiping about me over at that "whining" site? Or did you just see me offer to buy Klaus a beer?
53 Post contains links Eilennaei : Well Klaus, if you google, you can find pretty much anything. That's why I would very much have liked to see your exact link and source. You might kno
54 Klaus : See? That wasn't so hard, was it? Except accurate measurements of the global sea levels not rising or accelerating. They are all consistent.
55 Eilennaei : Yes, it's still hard. I'm ever so confused now. Why on earth are there so many links? Do I need to actually read through all these, or pick one at ra
56 Post contains images Klaus : Now you need to be really, really strong: The whole web is crawling with them!
57 Eilennaei : Could you point out the ones you followed on your quest, oh Master?
58 Post contains images Md80fanatic : Eilennaei, you really must quit fighting this. Just be a good boy and drink your koolaid. Klaus has listed thousands of links of academics who are far
59 Klaus : I've been very specific in my response to your claims, MD80; I have brought concrete evidence which proves your claims wrong. Is "I just don't believe
60 Post contains images CastleIsland : Well, since his username actually identifies him as a fanatic, what conclusions can we draw? There may be some serious wackiness in the message from
61 Md80fanatic : All the scientists I have met are more like Pianka than not. It seems to be like a "religion" in itself (science that is)....trying exclusively to dis
62 Klaus : Okay, your hasty retreat is accepted. Just please check a few sources before claiming to know better than the scientific community next time. Reality
63 Agill : Have been around a lot of scientists while doing biochemical work, and religion really isn't a big issue. Some are religious some aren't, it's more o
64 CastleIsland : So, you are calling me a liar by proxy. All I've ever done is: * Tried to create therapeutic agents to combat disease * Remediated hazardous waste si
65 Stirling : I'd hate to do something drastic, like bring this discussion back around to the topic....but I'm afraid I'm going to have to! Now, don't get me wrong,
66 CastleIsland : Science is about attempting to describe the natural world. Plenty of mistakes are made along the way, and it is only thorugh these interim mistakes,
67 Klaus : Quite correct thinking. And mortality among renowned experts in a scientific fields is conceivably skewed upwards additionally due to the fact that t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
True Conservatives posted Wed Feb 13 2008 08:49:28 by Dougloid
Ratzinger Showing His True Colors (again) posted Sun Jan 13 2008 13:50:08 by AR385
An Hdmi Is An Hdmi? How True? posted Wed Jan 2 2008 08:54:52 by Mirrodie
ANCflyers Dream Comes True! posted Thu Dec 13 2007 08:55:24 by Gkirk
Native Foods? Is It True? posted Fri Oct 19 2007 10:47:25 by Mbj-11
Brittney Spears Has True Fans..... posted Thu Sep 13 2007 01:13:59 by Walter747
10 Worst Meeting Offenses: Are These True? posted Wed Aug 15 2007 18:28:28 by MCOflyer
Is It True Or Hoax? posted Tue Jul 24 2007 14:21:28 by WildcatYXU
Origin Of "Taps". Is This True? posted Mon Jul 23 2007 16:24:32 by Falcon84
Pope: Other Denominations Not True Churches posted Sun Jul 15 2007 02:13:08 by Delta767300ER