Sloopydrew's saved articles
Explore our other sites
  • kotaku
  • theroot
    Sloopydrew's saved articles
    Sloopydrew
    Sloopydrew
    Sloopydrew
    PostsDiscussionsSaved ArticlesFollowers (16)Following (4)

    2) This is not a good way to measure "overcrowded". People may be able to fit in a small space, but the amount of land required to maintain those people is huge. We're putting a huge strain on ecosystems, and this simple exercise of calculating how many people could fit in a certain area doesn't just magically make…

    Look, believe what you want, but I'm going to err on the side of the guys who have actually done the research. Individual people can't do it all. That's why we're pulling for more use of renewable energy like solar and wind. That's why—once I have the money to do so—my next car is going to be either more fuel…

    also your notion that overpopulation is about the physical fitting of people on to earth is really bizarre/stupid.

    This. Even if it's just been overblown panic attacks, shouldn't we at least attempt to clean up the way we live? Why the fuck would there be any harm in doing that?

    Hi. Fuck you. If you don't want to believe science, stop using it.

    1) The issue is the RATE OF CHANGE, not the fact that it's changing. The rate is higher than any other recorded. A calculus class would do you well.

    2) It is estimated that our current population & lifestyle requires many more earths than the single one we have. You fail to realize that not all land is usable and a…

    1. The only scientists that were polled were those who support the anthropogenic climate change theory.

    Now playing

    Why would such a large number of independent scientists with no reason to all say or find the same thing go ahead and say and find the same things? Do you accept the findings of the scientific method only for some things and not others? If so, how do you make that decision?

    No. They looked at the number of peer-reviewed papers, and determined what percentage of climate-scientists took the position that humans are causing global warming. The number was 97%. They didn't poll anyone.

    1. That number is obtained by examining ALL peer-reviewed scientific papers published that year, and determining whether the authors supported the idea that humanity was causing global warming. It wasn't a poll, and it wasn't unrepresentative.

    Do I believe scientists, or an internet poster named "Chaos_Theory"? I think I'll stick with facts.

    1) I'm fairly sure that temperature rise AKA global warming has been antiquated for quite some time now in the scientific world. Most scientists agree that climate change due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing real changes with the thickness in the ozone layers that protect earth from harmful UV rays, as…

    Climate deniers have absolutely ZERO scientific credibility.

    1) "lol, I dont know how global warming works".

    Holy crap! Why didn't they give you a PHD? Clearly you're the world's greatest scientist of all time to be able to figure out of all this by vaguely referencing data. But then surely you must be aware that Global Warming is something of a misnomer and that it shojuld really be called Global Extreme Weather Shift. …

    You're wrong. (I'm not gonna write you an essay)

    It's not really the exact same pattern. Well, it is if you're saying that when the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere go up, the temperature goes up. There are a few other factors, but that's the biggest one. In that way, it is the same as it has ever been, except for the fact that we are the ones…

    Okay, lets do it this way. (TL:DR for you, this is essentially a form of Nash equilibrium, and provides you the logic framework to which a decision should be made, based on the probabilities).