Is Global Warming a myth?

I disagree.

We have tested a hugh number of nukes, some have been huge, with out screwing up the entire planet. People still live on or near the Japenese nuke sites, Chernobyl is now a natural wonderland for all creatures apart from humans (of which some do live there illegally and are not dying instantly)



By product = less people is good. The real outcome needs to be what ever it takes to stop 1.5 (is that right?) billion chinese getting to the point where they buy a new car every three years. A well placed limited nuke strike should damage their economy enough to do that. I am not talking blanket coverage in nukes here.

No one has a plan for that, unless we do we might as well stop putting up windmills.
 
If we were to nuke China then we'd have to do it on a big scale, because otherwise we embark on a long and unwinnable war. One or two isn't going to do enough damage to affect them overall, other than make them very angry. Nuking them on a big scale = nuclear winter.
 
I'm not sure if the actual mechanics of this are that important as its clearly never going to happen. I'm fairly sure there was a time that the USA could do a strike of this nature with little or no real fear of effective retaliation, but I guess we are past that point.

That aside, my point still stands, "if" MMGW is a real threat (and I am a believer) then this is the sort of magnitude we need to be looking at. If we can’t do this sort of step change we might as well give up and live with a nice V8 powered BMW. Certainly turning my TV off instead of using standby is not going to make a difference.

So what is the "realistic" plan?
 
"Cripes" you guys dont hold back

Sure makes sterilising the majority of the populace of the world look like a softly softly aproach compared lol
 
One thing I thought about over the weekend...what if we cure cancer, heart disease, malaria, aids?
All those people that would be dead still being alive?
If humanity lasts another 100 years I'll be amazed.
 
Really makes very little differance.

Cancer and heart disease tend to kill people past the point of having kids, so it will have little impact on over all population.

Aids and Malaria? Population of Africa is still rising in most areas despite the disease factors. The only way to control that is to make them richer (so they don't need to produce kids for economic reasons) but then again you over all raise the carbon foot print.

Nuclear war I say!!! You know its the only way!
 
Deceptive sterilisation is the way, clean, swift and gauranteed populace control.
Just make a "mistake" with a whole bunch of immunisation shots.. Oh, wait, havent they already innitiated that plan LOL (erm..joking ofcourse)
 
I might be wrong, and I doubt that anyone really has any hard data, but I am fairly sure that the USA was (and maybe still is) far enough advanced against China that they could perform a Nuke strike and be fairly sure they removed China's ability to respond. What Russia would do? Who knows? Are they even a super power anymore?

I think Russia (getting back on topic, sort off) is the only country I can think of right now that has a declining over all population (I have a feeling Japan has as well).
 
Is there a topic you're not completely misinformed about? You think China would see a load of ICBMs heading their way and think 'Hmm, we'd better wait until they reach their targets before we launch our missiles'?

Why am I even discussing this with you, you're seriously advocating genocide as a solution to Climate Change. This must be how corresponding with a 20 year old Hitler felt like.
 
Nope, hate to remove your reason for confrontation, but I am sure I have explained that my actual point is we not that we need to nuke China, but that we need something of this magnitude, or we might as well stop talking about MMGW as we will be able to do nothing about it. I put forward the Nuke option as I can honestly see no other way!

If you have another way, by all means state it........oh, you did, you think we should invest in (unstated) "alternatives"....well, its already to late for that by about 2 billion people. Fundamentally, there is no plan which is "nice" to everyone, and you dont like that.

Which leaves drought, flooding, clasped food chaines, and wars over water to do the dirty work for us? The Earth is going to see de-population one way or another.
 
well the usa could have probably done that in say between 1945 and 1949, before the USSR exploded their first bombs which was 1949. and the ussr had been devastated by what was called operation barbarossa. After that - as they say in Russian - Nyet. (no) Then the arms race began. Later came MAD.





WTF lol?

Some of our population NEEDS wars and nuking? Say huh?
 
Its interesting that as much as people dont like the nuke idea, no one has an alternative other then die of heat stroke.
 
There are many things which can be done, e.g. various ways to reduce cosumption of fossil fuels. But it's a question of whether they are enough, and whether the will exists to put them in to action.

The 'nuke' option isn't really an option though. It would be a bit like cutting your head off to stop yourself suffering from headaches.
 
Everyone knows we need the Zombie Apocalypse. We all get to practice our martial skills to the max without any restraint or guilt

The Bear.
 
Guys, why is this discussion even still going on? I solved this problem pages ago. We need to treat oil the same way a recovering alcoholic would treat alcohol. We need to find all our reserves to dump them out and go cold turkey. Once we get rid of all the oil, we can move on with our lives.
 
Back
Top