Xtra News Community 2
March 19, 2024, 08:45:31 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 55   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”  (Read 35309 times)
0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #525 on: March 22, 2016, 09:29:20 pm »

if only this mark moron guy who seems like a depressed white trash goon would commit suicide to help save the planet from his anti human diatribe rhetoric  the world might be a better place
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #526 on: March 31, 2016, 04:38:40 pm »


from The Washington Post....

Scientists nearly double sea level rise projections
for 2100, because of Antarctica


By BRADY DENNIS and CHRIS MOONEY | 1:44PM - Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Landsat 8 natural-color mosaic of the ice cliff at the terminus of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica on January 9th. — Photograph: Knut Christianson/USGS.
Landsat 8 natural-color mosaic of the ice cliff at the terminus of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica on January 9th.
 — Photograph: Knut Christianson/USGS.


SEA LEVELS could rise nearly twice as much as previously predicted by the end of this century if carbon dioxide emissions continue unabated, an outcome that could devastate coastal communities around the globe, according to new research published on Wednesday.

The main reason? Antarctica.

Scientists behind a new study published in the journal Nature used sophisticated computer models to decipher a longstanding riddle about how the massive, mostly uninhabited continent surrendered so much ice during previous warm periods on Earth. They found that similar conditions in the future could lead to monumental and irreversible increases in sea levels. If high levels of greenhouse gas emissions continue, they concluded, oceans could rise by close to two meters in total (more than six feet) by the end of the century. The melting of ice on Antarctica alone could cause seas to rise more than 15 meters (49 feet) by 2500.

The startling findings paint a far grimmer picture than current consensus predictions, which have suggested that seas could rise by just under a meter at most by the year 2100. Those estimates relied on the notion that expanding ocean waters and the melting of relatively small glaciers would fuel the majority of sea level rise, rather than the massive ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

The projection “nearly doubles” prior estimates of sea level rise, which had relied on a “minimal contribution from Antarctica,” said Rob DeConto of University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who authored the study with David Pollard of Penn State University.

The research already has created a buzz in the community of scientists studying Antarctica, and experts largely praised the new model as thorough and impressive, while noting its remaining uncertainties.

“People should not look at this as a futuristic scenario of things that may or may not happen. They should look at it as the tragic story we are following right now,” said Eric Rignot, an expert on Antarctica's ice sheet and an earth sciences professor at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in Wednesday's study. “We are not there yet … [But] with the current rate of emissions, we are heading that way.”


An edge of the Thwaites ice shelf: The blue, visible areas are denser ice. Over time, the weight of polar glaciers and ice sheets compresses and squeezes out gases and air. — Photograph: Jim Yungel/NASA.
An edge of the Thwaites ice shelf: The blue, visible areas are denser ice. Over time, the weight of polar glaciers and ice sheets compresses
and squeezes out gases and air. — Photograph: Jim Yungel/NASA.


Should the new research prove correct, it could trigger a “tectonic shift” in expectations for the speed and severity of the sea level problem, said Ben Strauss, director of the program on sea level rise at Climate Central, an independent organization of scientists based in New Jersey. He said that while the study's findings represent potentially grave problems for many coastal areas in the decades ahead, the century beginning in 2100 could see truly catastrophic shifts, unless societies make sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

“Under the high emissions scenario, the 22nd century would be the century of hell,” Strauss said. “There would really be an unthinkable level of sea rise. It would erase many major cities and some nations from the map…. That century would become the century of exodus from the coast.”

Places as far flung as South Florida, Bangladesh, Shanghai, Hampton Roads in Virginia and parts of Washington, D.C., could be engulfed by rising waters, Strauss said. Even by 2100, Miami Beach and the Florida Keys could begin to vanish. New Orleans essentially could become an island guarded by levies. Floods that pushed as far inland as the surge from Hurricane Sandy could ravage parts of the East Coast with far greater frequency.

The researchers behind Wednesday's study make clear that their model has limitations and that human behavior can alter the possible outcomes. For instance, the worst-case scenario — of seas rising nearly 4 feet due to Antarctic ice loss alone by 2100 — assumes that very high emissions continue for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

In Paris late last year, world leaders forged an historic agreement to begin scaling back such emissions in coming years. They embraced the goal of holding global warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, but at the same time, it has been widely noted that current country-level commitments to cut emissions fall far short of this target.

But even under a more moderate emissions scenario, Wednesday's study found that the Antarctic contribution to sea level rise still could reach about two feet by 2100, and much more by 2500. Only if countries sharply reduce emissions does the model show that it’s possible to preserve Antarctica in roughly its current state.

“This research highlights the importance of doing even much better than the Paris agreement if we're going to save our coastal cities,” Strauss said.

DeConto and Pollard arrived at their projections about future sea level rise by first turning to the past. Their study is based on an improved understanding of two past warm eras in Earth's history that featured much higher seas, known as the Pliocene and the Eemian. The Pliocene was a warm period about 3 million years ago, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are believed to have been about what they are now — 400 parts per million. Sea levels are believed to have been significantly higher than now — perhaps 30 feet or more. The Eemian period, between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, also featured sea levels 6 to 9 meters above current levels, with global temperatures not much warmer than our current era.




Sea level rise on the scale seen in those eras likely required a loss of ice not just from Greenland, but also from Antarctica. But previous computer models of Antarctica have failed to accurately reproduce such scenarios. Scientists had spent “years of struggling to be able to simulate tens of meters of sea level rise in the Pliocene,” DeConto said. “This has been a longstanding problem for us. And we had known for years that we're probably missing some important underlying physics.”

Scientists already knew that key parts of Antarctica, and especially West Antarctica, feature a condition called “marine ice sheet instability”. That is, vast glaciers are already rooted below sea level and lie on downward sloping seabeds. Warm water can not only melt them from below, but as the glaciers retreat, more and more ice will be exposed to melting.

The new study factors in not only this process, but two new ice processes that have scientists already have seen destabilize several glaciers in Greenland: “hydrofracture”, in which water formed by the melting of snow and ice atop a glacier's stabilizing ice shelf causes it to break up; and “cliff collapse”, in which a sheer ice cliff 100 meters or more above sea level becomes unstable and crashes repeatedly into the ocean below. Both phenomena can speed up the pace of ice loss from glaciers and cause sea level rise.




“Build a little sand castle and it is fine; too high and it may break,” said Richard Alley, a glaciologist at Penn State University who has published previously with DeConto and Pollard, describing the revelations regarding ice cliff collapse.

Knut Christianson, a glaciologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, said the new work will spur additional research to determine precisely what happens at glaciers where cliff collapses and so-called “calving” occur. “It's a more comprehensive analysis than before, and it certainly indicates that we should look more closely to see whether or not the way they treat these processes in the model is accurate in the real world,” he said.

The research further undermines a string of sea level projections from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which have been faulted for being too conservative.

In 2013, the body projected that for the same high-end emissions scenario used in the current study, sea level rise by the year 2100 would be between 0.52 and 0.98 meters (1.7 and 3.22 feet), relatively little of which would come from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. It noted that beyond this likely range, only Antarctica's marine-based regions could conceivably contribute a lot more, but the panel found that “there is medium confidence that this additional contribution would not exceed several tenths of a meter.”

The new study challenges that reasoning. It also emerges as mounting research has pointed at one region of Antarctica in particular — the Amundsen Sea sector of remote West Antarctica, centered on the enormous, marine-based Thwaites glacier — as particularly vulnerable.

If the projections in Wednesday's study prove correct, they could present especially bad news for U.S. coasts. The reason is gravity: Antarctica's enormous mass pulls the ocean toward it, and when it loses significant mass, seas would surge back toward the opposite end of the world.

“Sea level rise is not going to be felt evenly over the surface of the Earth. It's really bad for New York, Boston. We are sort of in the bullseye,” DeConto said.


• Brady Dennis is a national reporter for The Washington Post, focusing on food and drug issues.

• Chris Mooney reports on science and the environment for The Washington Post.

__________________________________________________________________________

More on this topic:

 • The alarming science driving much higher sea level projections for this century

 • Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here's what that looks like.

 • Why some Antarctic glaciers are disappearing faster then we thought

 • The U.S. has caused more global warming than any other country. Here's how the Earth will get its revenge.

 • PHOTOGRAPH GALLERY: In North Carolina, a battle over climate change


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #527 on: March 31, 2016, 05:07:30 pm »

thank god for that i miss not living by the beach  Grin

Here's me in 2100 i hope the salt water wont make me rust


« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 05:21:21 pm by Im2Sexy4MyPants » Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #528 on: March 31, 2016, 06:09:55 pm »


from Fairfax NZ....

Houses will be ‘red-zoned’ due to climate change
 — Environment Commissioner


Report warns of “big social issues”, with 44,000 New Zealand
homes at risk if high tide rises reach 150cm.


By ROSANNA PRICE | 4:03PM - Thursday, 31 March 2016

Dr Jan Wright's report presented to local government and the environment select committee warns of “big social issues” as a result of climate change.
Dr Jan Wright's report presented to local government and the environment select committee
warns of “big social issues” as a result of climate change.


CLIMATE CHANGE is coming, and with it communities may have to be abandoned or left to deal with major financial costs.

Environment Commissioner Jan Wright said the country would face some “big social issues” because of climate change, identified in a report presented to the local government and environment select committee.

She urged central and local government to improve their planning and have national guidelines.

The report identified 44,000 homes would be affected by flooding when the high-tide rise reached 150 centimetres. An additional 24,000 buildings would also be affected.

It would cost $20 billion to replace them — and the figure did not include any infrastructure or telecommunications.

When considering a 50cm high-tide rise, 9,000 homes would be affected with an additional 4,000 buildings. This would equate to a $3b cost for replacement.

Wright had been in talks with insurance companies and banks about the effects.

“If a particular property is subject to this kind of risk, then insurance companies will start to look at whether they insure it or not,” she said.

“So you might see premiums go up, you might see the co-payments go up. Eventually a house would become uninsurable — probably a lot before it became uninhabitable.”

She said insurance companies “would take themselves quietly out of the picture”.

There could be mortgage holders in the “sad” situation of dealing with negative equity, where their mortgage would be bigger than the value of the house.

“It's kind of like a slowly unfolding red-zone in Christchurch.”


The report claims that 44,000 homes would be affected by flooding when sea level rises reached 150 centimetres. — Photograph: Asleigh Stewart/Fairfax NZ.
The report claims that 44,000 homes would be affected by flooding when sea level rises
reached 150 centimetres. — Photograph: Asleigh Stewart/Fairfax NZ.


The cost of sea-level rise of 50cm would be affect a similar number of houses in Christchurch's evacuated red-zone within the next couple of decades, she said.

Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett said every time you learn a bit more about the science “it is a little more frightening”.

“I worry about future insurance costs for every day households if they're having to deal with those sorts of flooding events,” she said.

“I do think we can put more into the kinds of technology and adaptation that would make a difference.”

However, the advice she had received about Kiwis locked into negative equity was that it would not be the case in the “near future”, but was still an “unknown” in decades to come.

Bennett was confident she could pull together a longer term plan that was not just Government-run, but led across communities.

Finance Minister Bill English said the Government would not budget for the costs of rising sea levels when the report was released in November.

The report includes maps by region of risk areas for flooding, erosion and groundwater issues. Those are available online.

The UN's climate body had predicted up to a one-metre rise by the year 2100.

However, it may be a two-metre rise at the current rate of carbon emissions, according to a study in the journal Nature which took into account Antarctic ice sheets that are melting faster than previously thought.


__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic....

 • Preparing New Zealand for rising seas: Certainty and Uncertainty


http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78407260
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
guest49
Guest
« Reply #529 on: March 31, 2016, 06:10:28 pm »

30 years back. the warmalists were adamant that the sea level would be a hundred feet higher at this point in time.
I've kind've lost faith in their prophesising skills.........
Report Spam   Logged
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #530 on: March 31, 2016, 06:32:05 pm »

Yak
their crystal ball is broken their scientist and their green goblins need a new leader lol

Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
guest49
Guest
« Reply #531 on: March 31, 2016, 06:36:55 pm »

LOL
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #532 on: March 31, 2016, 06:53:24 pm »


The insurance companies will force the issue when they decide the risk is too great to insure properties close to the coast.

I guess a lot of people who haven't listened are going to take a huge financial bath when their insurance companies pull the rug out from beneath them.

Then the banks will foreclose on mortgaged properties that suddenly don't have insurance, and as nobody will want to purchase uninsurable properties, the banks will be bankrupting a shitload of people. Oh well, if people choose to ignore the warnings and purchase coastal properties, they will have done it to themselves, eh?

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #533 on: March 31, 2016, 08:04:54 pm »





so you're starting to worry about some other people might lose their money ktj ?
if you're lucky they might all be right wing white trash racist then you won't need to give a rats arse Lol



Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #534 on: March 31, 2016, 08:36:57 pm »


The town you live in will be in deep shit when increasing global warming causes yet more epic storms to close the Manawatu Gorge.

No matter where you hide, you cannot escape from it. It will be your kids and your grandkids who will bear the brunt of nature's fury because of the selfish generations who trashed the planet. How do you feel about that? Or don't you even care what happens to your grandchildren and great-grandchildren?
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #535 on: March 31, 2016, 09:21:11 pm »

although i do love my children and grandchildren even if the witches are right about sea level rise and global warming by then you and me will be long dead and forgotten and the earths children will either adapt or die but don't worry the earth will survive

i don't believe death is the end of life but even if i am wrong one day you and i will find out the truth
i'm betting this life is a dream and we are on a ride until the ride stops when we die lol  then we are pure energy and evolve into a life form made of light so no worries boy lol

stop whining and get ready for the next big adventure lmao
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
guest49
Guest
« Reply #536 on: April 01, 2016, 06:21:30 am »

New Zealand, amongst other countries round the world, has had areas rising and falling for eons. 
As one tectonic plate rolls under another, [as happens directly under New Zealand for those who live in happy ignorance] the surface alters.

Since the warmalists scented money in the offing a few decades ago - a bit like sharks scent blood in the water - these natural rises and falls have miraculously converted into "the results of Human Induced Global Warming!" [snort]

Do I believe in "Global Warming?"  Of course I do.  The warming/cooling cycle has been happening since the Earth was formed and the sun shone.  Its not going to stop now!

Do I believe we can do something to help our planet?  Too right! 

Invest in arms/munitions and supply all the worlds trouble spots impartially.  All countries to decline to give foreign aid and also refuse UN mandated immigration.  Lower the Earths population by billions - contraception by  force if necessary. 
Its going to become necessary sooner or later and the sooner it happens the better off the Earth will be..
Report Spam   Logged
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #537 on: April 01, 2016, 09:17:15 am »

Quote
Do I believe we can do something to help our planet?  Too right! 
Invest in arms and supply all the trouble spots impartially.  Countries decline to give foreign aid and also refuse immigration.  Lower the Earths population by billions - by  force if necessary.  Its going to become necessary sooner or later and the sooner it happens the better off the Earth will be.
.

i think a lot of that stuff is already in the works Yak lol


so much for globalism, immigration and political correctness it's all useless lol

but what bothers me is who gets to pick who lives and who dies?

advances in mass killing technology will in a very short time end up in the hands of terrorists with a death wish for all of humanity maybe we deserve that for being so soft and wimpy.

i think some of the major countries in the world if they want could target whole countries with  spaced based microwave weapons and could either target single a person,groups or anyone on the planet deemed unnecessary  to slow cook or fast cook using their cell phones to target or track them down and analyze if they should live or die according to their natural habits data which is already now being stored up on 5th gen computers maybe it's already 6 or seven gen quantum supercomputers with AI that will one day even turn on their masters lol.

i see a great future for AI terminator robot killing machines sexypants 2.0 lmao


Yak you might now get called a hitler or a bigoted racist by ktj
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #538 on: April 01, 2016, 09:58:39 am »

So this is where hitler's idea's came from







Francis Galton
statistician, progressive, polymath, sociologist, psychologist, anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist and psychometrician.

Born: February 16, 1822, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Died: January 17, 1911, Haslemere, United Kingdom
Notable student: Karl Pearson
Parents: Frances Anne Violetta Darwin, Samuel Tertius Galton
Education: King's College London, Trinity College, Cambridge, University of Cam
 

The return of eugenics
– but they're running ahead with the idea, and Britain is at the forefront Researchers don’t like the word


The only way of cutting off the constant stream of idiots and imbeciles and feeble-minded persons who help to fill our prisons and workhouses, reformatories, and asylums is to prevent those who are known to be mentally defective from producing offspring. Undoubtedly the best way of doing this is to place these defectives under control. Even if this were a hardship to the individual it would be necessary for the sake of protecting the race.
— The Spectator, 25 May 1912
 


It’s comforting now to think of eugenics as an evil that sprang from the blackness of Nazi hearts. We’re familiar with the argument: some men are born great, some as weaklings, and both pass the traits on to their children. So to improve society, the logic goes, we must encourage the best to breed and do what we can to stop the stupid, sick and malign from passing on their defective genes. This was taken to a genocidal extreme by Hitler, but the intellectual foundations were laid in England. And the idea is now making a startling comeback.

A hundred years ago the eugenic mission involved a handful of crude tools: bribing the ‘right’ people to have larger families, sterilising the weakest. Now stunning advances in science are creating options early eugenicists could only dream about. Today’s IVF technology already allows us to screen embryos for inherited diseases such as cystic fibrosis. But soon parents will be able to check for all manner of traits, from hair colour to character, and choose their ‘perfect’ child.

The era of designer babies, long portrayed by dystopian novelists and screenwriters, is fast arriving. According to Hank Greely, a Stanford professor in law and biosciences, the next couple of generations may be the last to accept pot luck with procreation. Doing so, he adds, may soon be seen as downright irresponsible. In his forthcoming book The End of Sex, he explains a brave new world in which mothers will be given a menu with various biological options. But even he shies away from the word that sums all this up. For Professor Greely, and almost all of those in the new bioscience, eugenics is never mentioned, as if to avoid admitting that history has swung full circle.



The word ‘eugenics’ was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, a polymath who invented fingerprinting and many of the techniques of modern statistical research. He started with a hunch: that so many great men come from the same families because genius is hereditary. Fascinated by the evolutionary arguments of his cousin Charles Darwin, he wondered whether advances in health care and welfare had sullied the national gene pool because they allowed more of the sick and disabled not just to survive but to lead normal family lives. He went off to collect data, and came back with his theory of eugenics.

This was hailed not as a theory but as a discovery — a new science of human life, with laws as immutable as Newton’s. A race of gifted men could be created, he said, ‘as surely as we can propagate idiots by mating cretins’

Some of the most revered names in British history lapped this up. As Home Secretary, Churchill wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to do more to stop the “multiplication of the unfit”. Darwin himself would come to fear that “if the prudent avoid marriage whilst the reckless marry, inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society”.

By 1908, a Royal Commission conveyed the grave news that there were 150,000 ‘feeble-minded’ people in Britain. So what was to be done with them? As one reformer put it: “They must be acknowledged dependents of the State…but with complete and permanent loss of all civil rights – including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood”. This was William Beveridge, founder of the welfare state.

A report in The Times conveyed, matter-of-factly, the substance of a lecture given to the Eugenics Society following survey of the people of Devon by a Dr Grunby.

As to imbeciles, he said there was only one thing to do with them: exterminate them as they arose. He put forward the suggestion on purely humanitarian grounds.
Eugenics came to stand for modernity: to believe in it was to declare one’s belief in science and rationalism, to be liberated from religious qualms. Some of the most revered names in English history lapped all of this up. The Bishop of Birmingham called for sterilisation. Bertrand Russell looked forward to a eugenic era driven by science, not religion. ‘We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilise those who are not considered desirable as parents,’ he argued in 1924.

When a Sterilisation Bill was brought before Parliament in 1931 it had the backing of social workers, dozens of local authorities and the medical and scientific establishment. It was defeated, but the agenda continued. The Nuremberg Trials established that the Nazis (latecomers to all this) carried out some 400,000 compulsory sterilisations — a figure so horrific it has eclipsed the 60,000 in Sweden and a similar number in the United States. The idea of a biological divide between the fit and the unfit was no Nazi invention. It was the conventional wisdom of the developed world.

And this is the problem. Because we forget how badly Britain fell for eugenics, we fail to recognise the basic arguments of eugenics when they reappear — which they are now doing with remarkable regularity.

Consider Adam Perkins, a lecturer at King’s College London, who has published a study echoing the Royal Commission’s attempt to quantify the feeble-minded. The group he aims to study are the ‘employment-resistant’: those disposed to a life on welfare as a result of genetic predispositions and having grown up in workless homes. With Galtonesque precision, he estimates some 98,040 ‘extra’ people were ‘created by the welfare state’ over 15 years due to a rise in welfare spending. They represent an ‘ever-greater burden on the more functional citizens’.

In 1938, Germans were shown a poster of a cripple and invited to be angry about the costs of caring for him (60,000 Reichmarks). Dr Perkins tries a softer version of this general idea, calculating the Ł12,000-a-head annual cost of the new British untermensch — not just in welfare, but the crimes they will probably commit. His remedy? That Cameron’s government restricts welfare, so that claimants have fewer children. A perfect eugenic solution.

There is nothing monstrous about Dr Perkins, himself a former welfare claimant, nor anything very original about his book. He simply joins the dots of recent academic research and spells out what others won’t. His footnotes show the growing academic pedigree of the new eugenics: work has been done to identify genes relating to alcoholism, criminality, sporting success, even premature ejaculation. Extrapolations are now made about how far the quality of human stock worldwide has been eroded by health care and welfare.

In academia, the word ‘eugenics’ may be controversial but the idea is not. To Professor Julian Savulescu, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, the ability to apply ‘rational design’ to humanity, through gene editing, offers a chance to improve the human stock — one baby at a time. ‘When it comes to screening out personality flaws such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence,’ he said a while ago, ‘you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children’.

Meanwhile, the scientific pursuit of ‘ethically better children’ is advancing rapidly. Since Louise Brown was conceived in a laboratory 38 years ago — the world’s first IVF baby — the treatment has become mainstream, sought by 100 women a day in Britain. Developments in IVF mean that, today, several embryos can be fertilised and screened for diseases, with the winner implanted in the uterus. The next step was taken last year, when Chinese scientists succeeded in modifying the genes of a fertilised embryo. It was rather messy: they attempted to treat 86 non-viable embryos, and failed in most cases. So they abandoned the experiment, saying a 100 per cent success rate is needed when dealing in human life.

This — the genetic modification of human embryos — is what causes the concern. But here, and at each point in the new eugenics, you can argue: where is the moral problem? There are no deaths, no sterilisations, no abortions: just a scientifically guided conception. The potential avoidance of disease, to the betterment of humanity. So who could complain?

One answer came four months ago, when 150 scientists and academics called for a complete shutdown of human gene editing. In a letter released before a summit in Washington DC, they argued that the technology would ‘open the door to an era of high-tech consumer eugenics’, with affluent parents choosing the best qualities and creating a new form of genetically modified human. To these scientists, the complex issue boils down to a simple point: ‘We must not engineer the genes we pass on to our descendants.’

Such concerns cannot be heard from the British government, which recently helped to build the Francis Crick Institute, a new nerve centre for biomedical research. A few weeks ago, the institute was given authorisation to begin a new, controversial gene-editing technique known as CRISPR-Cas9. To supporters, this is proof of Britain’s position at the cutting edge of research. To critics, it is proof that Britain (one of the few countries that does not ban the use of fertilised human embryos in experiments) is again rushing headlong into eugenic science with minimal debate.

On the rare occasions the matter is raised in Parliament, ministers say that they do not support eugenics. But, as Chris Patten has pointed out in the Lords, that is a meaningless statement if there is no attempt to define the term. To David Galton, who has written more about the subject than any British academic, the definition is simple. If you use science to make the best of genes handed down to the next generation, that’s eugenics: ‘Sweeping the word under the carpet or sanitising it with another name merely conceals the appalling abuses that have occurred in the past and may lull people into a false sense of security.’

The idea of consumer eugenics is no futurist fantasy. Already, sperm banks boast about screening for everything from autism to red hair. Ł12,000 buys you the chance to choose which embryo to implant. And Ł400 buys sperm-sorting, the better to conceive a boy (or a girl). And even in the slums of India, women desperate for a boy will pay for ante-natal screening to identify — and abort — girls. It doesn’t take government to pursue eugenics: parents will do it themselves.

The Francis Crick Institute says its gene-editing research has nothing to do with eugenics; even British law prohibits pregnancies from gene-edited embryos, and its researchers plan to destroy them after seven days. Instead, it aims to learn about the role of genes in miscarriage. But if its research improves gene-editing technology, less scrupulous scientists can make use of that. This is why scholars like Robert Pollack, a professor at Columbia University, want a moratorium on the whole process of modifying human genes. ‘Imagine that, many years hence, there are two sorts of people: those who carry the messy inheritance of their ancestors, and those whose ancestors had the resources to clean up their germ cells before IVF.’ So you end up with two types of humans: the genetically tidy rich and everyone else.

The experiments being carried out in London are worrying, he says, precisely because the British have such a good success rate. ‘It is not failure, but success, that concerns me,’ says Professor Pollack. ‘And for that concern, there are few venues more troubling than the Crick Institute — it is as likely as any place in the world to do this without making any distracting, avoidable mistakes.’

So some 130 years after Britain gave the world the idea of perfecting humanity, we are once again at the cutting edge of this troubled science. For good or ill, eugenics is back.


http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/the-return-of-eugenics/

 
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 10:21:18 am by Im2Sexy4MyPants » Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
guest49
Guest
« Reply #539 on: April 01, 2016, 11:42:16 am »

Yeah - I clarified a point or two in my post - And you are correct in your concern over who decides.
I don't know the answer to that yet, but sooner or later something will be done about it, or our planet will be swamped by the masses.
Report Spam   Logged
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #540 on: April 01, 2016, 12:30:05 pm »

it didn't get too hot here in woodville this year

overpopulation, wars and global warming? i am still unsure about warming but what do i know?
natural disasters and the culling of 90% of the world's population to save the world's resources lol i am not sure about that either,even still part of me wants to destroy some unruly humans for the common good all but not sure of the ethic's of this idea

i think we have been at this point before on the earth many times then been destroyed by natural events or wars i believe this by looking at the mega structures all over the planet that seem to show they were built by an advanced civilisation way back and not with copper tools either but more likely by humans with advanced technology
i think in the past the earth may have experienced many catastrophic extinction events and we are the survivors.

its hard to measure what is intelligence and its hard to trust scientist with agendas who already believe they have solved the puzzle then make a picture that proves them correct by fudging things to make the bits fit all for their pride and grants so they can continue to do their work when in fact they could be deluding themselves and others



Yak i thought this was interesting in the comment sec  below the story

Let us try to understand what exactly Fraser discusses.

There are two separate and unrelated problems:

1. How to clean a population of genetic defects (like pathologically low IQ)?

2. How to improve the genetics of a population, that is to find a way to steadily change whatever chosen parameter (like IQ or the penis size).

It is quite clear for anyone who studied thermodynamics within the limits of school textbook that any attempt to solve the second problem by dedicated selection (which is the main point of eugenics) is thoroughly idiotic.

The first problem has nothing to with genetics. It is a matter of social regulation. In a reasonable society, people must be encouraged to do what they do best, and discouraged to do anything bad for the society. The latter can be of two kinds: (a) an idiot is promoted to a position of decision making or (b) a smart but evil-minded person gets an opportunity to inflict damage to other people, like all sorts of thieves and swindlers.

The best way of solving the second problem is a system of meritocracy which existed in China since 2500 years ago. Smart people were promoted to higher positions using a system of examinations, regardless of the applicant's origin. Stupid people did farming. People with criminal and violent minds were conscripted to the military service, and they had plenty of opportunity to exercise their violent character in the battlefield.
 
 
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 01:49:07 pm by Im2Sexy4MyPants » Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #541 on: April 01, 2016, 04:48:38 pm »


from The Washington Post....

EDITORIAL: Shocking new study foresees a
swamped planet as the GOP revels in illogic


By the EDITORIAL BOARD | 2:02PM EDT - Thursday, March 31, 2016

Ice from Mendenhall Glacier spills alongside sediment and rocks in Juneau, Alaska, on February 15th. — Photograph: Becky Bohrer/Associated Press.
Ice from Mendenhall Glacier spills alongside sediment and rocks in Juneau, Alaska, on February 15th.
 — Photograph: Becky Bohrer/Associated Press.


“I JUST think we have much bigger risks,” Donald Trump told us last week. We had asked the Republican presidential candidate about human-caused climate change, a phenomenon in which he said he is “not a big believer”. Don't good business leaders hedge against risks, spending something now to avoid potentially negative outcomes later? “I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons,” he responded.

Mr. Trump is not alone among Republicans in citing other scary problems to illogically ignore the danger of a warming world. Senator Ted Cruz (Texas) and Ohio Governor John Kasich both mention terrorism — “the real problem that faces us today,” Mr. Kasich said — when criticizing President Obama's efforts to slow climate change.

Meanwhile, in the world of facts, evidence and science, the dangers of climate change look ever more frightening.

The latest news comes courtesy of a shocking paper in the journal Nature about how Antarctic ice sheets might respond to warmer air and ocean temperatures. Scientists from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Pennsylvania State University examined previous eras in which the planet was only a bit warmer yet seas were much higher. Previous modeling did not match these foreboding historical phenomena, so the scientists used insights into the physics of how the continent's massive ice formations melt to improve the models. The result is downright scary: “Antarctica has the potential to contribute more than a metre of sea-level rise by 2100 and more than 15 metres by 2500, if emissions continue unabated.” With that additional melting from Antarctica, seas could rise some 6 feet by 2100. This would result in humanitarian catastrophe, swamping coastal cities all over the world and forcing massive inland migrations.

In separate research, highlighted last week by The Washington Post's Chris Mooney, scientists found strong evidence that a layer of permafrost across the frozen north is thawing, which could lead to massive stocks of organic matter breaking down, which would release more planet-warming greenhouse emissions. This feedback loop could significantly worsen global warming over time.

Perhaps warmer Arctic temperatures will also lead to large-scale plant growth, canceling out some of the greenhouse gases emitted during the thaw? A group of researchers asked 98 experts on the Arctic about this possibility, and the results were not encouraging. Models predicting large offsetting effects, for example, failed to account for changes in the region's water resources. All in all, the chance that the Arctic will become an increasingly large source of greenhouse emissions this century appears to be significant, if humanity does not act to arrest warming.

The interlocking effects of the Earth's various systems remain complex and difficult to predict. What is beyond question is that we face significant risk. The prudent response would be to mitigate the threat, instead of waiting to discover that scientists' warnings were on target — or even understated — after the damage has been done.


__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic:

 • The Washington Post's View: 2015 … A year of progress and buffoonery on climate change

 • Jason Samenow: Global warming in 2015 made weather more extreme, and it's likely to get worse

 • Fred Hiatt: Even ExxonMobil says climate change is real. So why won't the GOP?

 • Michael Gerson: We need a miracle on climate change


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/shocking-new-study-foresees-swamped-planet-as-the-gop-revels-in-illogic/2016/03/31/a3d449b0-f2c7-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #542 on: April 02, 2016, 12:06:51 pm »

Donald Trump when he makes america great again is going to build cities under the sea and make king neptune pay for it lol

Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #543 on: April 04, 2016, 02:52:29 pm »


AUCKLAND STADIUM
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32223


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #544 on: April 12, 2016, 01:52:48 pm »


GONE BY WINTER'S END
(click on the picture to read the news story)
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
guest49
Guest
« Reply #545 on: April 12, 2016, 05:34:20 pm »

I'm puzzled.
What has this continual erosion -especially of our western coastline - got to do with this thread?
Report Spam   Logged
nitpicker1
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 11886


Nothing sexceeds like sexcess


« Reply #546 on: April 14, 2016, 09:34:47 am »

I'm puzzled.
What has this continual erosion -especially of our western coastline - got to do with this thread?

Seems to me that coastal erosion is/could be a result of Climate change -  especially the erosion caused by extremes of weather systems as are occurring in both hemispheres recently.

If you read the 'related' in the story you'd find the problem is not occurring only on the West coast in NZ

FYI
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/74172819/Large-parts-of-Napier-are-vulnerable-to-sea-level-rise-according-to-report

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/residential-property/78670742/couple-heartbroken-after-storms-leave-155000-wairarapa-bach-worth-2500

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/kapiti/9854214/Residents-win-hazard-lines-challenge

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/72286165/Wairarapa-school-workers-and-trampers-cut-off-as-roads-flooded-damaged

I have been watching my own area's erosion and changing seasons happening for yonks.




Report Spam   Logged

"Life might not be the party you were expecting, but you're here now, so you may as well get up and dance"
guest49
Guest
« Reply #547 on: April 14, 2016, 10:04:31 am »

Its not for nothing that the old time sailors called the latitudes NZ spans, The Roaring Forties. 
Apart from Napier, the links you provide are western coast, which face some of the most violent seas in the world.  [I once spoke with a pommy worker who got swept off the Maui Platform - he told me that he had worked on rigs all over the world but didn't know what rough water was till he came to NZ]

Our coastlines have been carved away for eons, this just hasn't suddenly appeared overnight!
Punakaiki itself, demonstrates this by the erosion that caused the blowholes and pinnacles!

As far as Napier goes, the height above sea-level for much of it can be measured in inches rather than feet.  It was raised [ against the historical trend] in the big quake and will probably return to sinking again in any major subsequent quake, if its not already doing so by increment.
I lived in the suburb of Onekawa for a while and whenever I dug anywhere, the water-table under my section seemed to lie at about 18 inches.
Report Spam   Logged
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #548 on: April 14, 2016, 03:46:41 pm »

here's a short film about some underwater cities they have found from way back in the past
if you are interested you can look them up

Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
nitpicker1
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 11886


Nothing sexceeds like sexcess


« Reply #549 on: April 20, 2016, 02:36:03 am »


NZ gets another climate change warning
NZ Newswire on April 19, 2016, 10:19

New Zealand can expect more "one-in-100-year" storms, flooding, fires, weather extremes and climate change refugees, warn scientists looking at the effects of climate change.
The Royal Society has released a report, Climate Change Implications for New Zealand, which outlines a drastically different country if urgent greenhouse gas action isn't taken.
"All New Zealanders will be affected and must be involved in the discussion. We hope this report can act as a basis for a wider national conversation," said society president Professor Richard Bedford.
The report says with a 30cm rise in sea level, the current one-in-100-year extreme sea event would be expected to occur once every year or so.
"Many New Zealanders live on the coast and two-thirds of us live in flood-prone areas so we are vulnerable to these projected changes," said Professor James Renwick, chair of the panel which wrote the report.
There may also be more climate change refugees.
"Think about Syria and the Mediterranean today," Prof Renwick told TV3's Paul Henry programme.
"That could be a picture of the future in a lot of parts of the world if we don't get on top of the problem. A lot of people may want to come here, whether we want them to come or not."
However, the report says not all of the issues were negative, and some were already delivering gains to New Zealand.
"Increasing global commodity prices due to negative effects of climate change on food production globally could benefit New Zealand farmers, but making use of such price rises also relies on New Zealand's ability to trade in global markets."
Last year, Parliamentary Commissioner Jan Wright produced a report outlining what sea level rise would do to houses near the coast, but Finance Minister Bill English dismissed it as "pretty speculative".
SIX CLIMATE CHANGE PROBLEM AREAS FOR NZ:
* New Zealanders live mainly near coasts
* Many live on floodplains
* Increased freshwater demand, less rain in some areas, more in others
* Ocean temperature and chemistry changes will affect fishing
* The country's unique biology will be affected
* New Zealand will be affected by other countries' response to climate change.

NZN

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=224934

Report Spam   Logged

"Life might not be the party you were expecting, but you're here now, so you may as well get up and dance"

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 55   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.071 seconds with 18 queries.