What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
by Narz » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 02:15:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'Y')ou know what Monte would/will say to that, of course. Six letters, begins with H ends with s has "ubri" in the middle...
Yeah, he's the MonteBot. His main retorts are "do your homework", "what hubris!", "you're in denial" and when those fail "shut the fuck up".
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'M')onte has a noble message to convey, but I don't see it ever gaining traction.
His message is depressing, not noble. But you're right it will never catch on.
Permaculture is noble. Teaching people how to live sustainably is noble. Telling people they it's wrong to give medical treatment to their little girl is she falls & hits her head is just sick. "We must increase the death rate! We must increase the death rate!".
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I')'ve always been puzzled by the cornucopians' dreams of hundreds of billions standing shoulder-to-shoulder - that some kind of kneejerk response?
Haven't heard that one.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I')'d much rather read Jack's posts. Humour so black your eyes water. These 65 page threads on the precise scope of inevitable death are like turgid theological debates on the structure of Hell.
I like Jack. Though his "evil sociopath" persona gets old after awhile. Where is he anyway? Haven't seen him in awhile.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
-
Narz
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
-
by ThereWillBeMoreBlood » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 02:25:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Typo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('roccman', '6') Billion or more dieing in under 20 years is a stark cold fact.
However - the illusion is powerful.
Thus you have "middlegrounders"...or those who believe in a god that will save them.
Oh well - so it goes.
Oh geezzz . . . thank you, Nostradamus. Also, thank you for providing the perfect example of my observation that the most extreme doomers only write in "one-line zingers," as if every sentence they were laying down in print on an anonymous Internet forum was mana from heaven. I suggest giving paragraphs a try; they will do wonders for making your thoughts more cohesive.
Exactly. You've gotta love the doomers on this forum, posting in cryptic one line decrees as if they are receiving information straight from above. It really just makes this board look foolish.
No one on here knows what is going to happen in the next five, ten, twenty years, yet to listen to some of these guys you would think they've warped back here in a time machine.
-
ThereWillBeMoreBlood
- Wood
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
-
by TheDude » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 02:35:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'M')onte has a noble message to convey, but I don't see it ever gaining traction.
His message is depressing, not noble. But you're right it will never catch on.
I mean the idea of voluntary population reduction, through birth control. We can't get that working right now owing to interference from thickheaded Christians, so it looks like it'll be up to Nature to put things into balance, barring your renewable civilization or some left field breakthrough in fusion.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')ermaculture is noble. Teaching people how to live sustainably is noble. Telling people they it's wrong to give medical treatment to their little girl is she falls & hits her head is just sick. "We must increase the death rate! We must increase the death rate!".
Haven't heard it put that extremely, but as I said I don't follow the rotting corpse discussions much.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I')'ve always been puzzled by the cornucopians' dreams of hundreds of billions standing shoulder-to-shoulder - that some kind of kneejerk response?
Haven't heard that one.
Read up on Julian Simon. Trillions of people, all owing to our ingenuity. Sic.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I')'d much rather read Jack's posts. Humour so black your eyes water. These 65 page threads on the precise scope of inevitable death are like turgid theological debates on the structure of Hell.
I like Jack. Though his "evil sociopath" persona gets old after awhile. Where is he anyway? Haven't seen him in awhile.
He's back to Modding of late. Posts here and there.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-
TheDude
- Expert
-
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
-
by Gothor » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:15:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('roccman', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('benzoil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('roccman', '6') Billion or more dieing in under 20 years is a stark cold fact.
Actually, that'd be an opinion. *shrug*
Oh well - so it goes.
Have you read any of Monte's post?
Yeah. I wish I could have that time back.
Monte, Cashmere and the like are suicidal. And they want me to be too. Fark that.
Monte's like a farking robot. Lacking the freedom of thought to imagine any opinion or scenario than the one cattle-prodded into his brain. If everyone thought like him we certainly might as well all commit mass-suicide. He seems to have had the creativity and innovation that makes a person human surgically removed from his brain.
Guys like Monte have been mouthing off since Malthus. Maybe someday they'll be right but I certainly wouldn't bet on their timeframe.
Hey Rocc, did you read the "Population Bomb" back in the 70's? Weren't we all supposed to be dead 30 years ago?
Jesus I couldn't agree more...maybe that's why I got banned a couple years back 
P.S. you should've been on TS then man did he have fits when you didn't agree with him
-
Gothor
- Peat
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
-
by Interfector » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:17:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y that I mean, anyone who believes that the era of cheap oil is over, and that life will probably get steadily tougher for the majority of people, but doesn't think that we'll be resorting to cannibalism to survive within a decade, but that could be a potential scenario in the future if the right action isn't taken now.
When did the aftermath of peak oil become a faith-based topic?
Do I BELIEVE that the vast majority of the third, second and first world will be drowned into poverty by stagflation within the next 5 years? I might, but that doesn't mean a god damn thing unless I can prove it with facts and figures. This isn't a question of belief, it is a question of mathematical data leading to a logical conclusion...
If we're going to base our arguments on this forum solely on belief, then what are we going to achieve? Definitely no serious argument if that's the case.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing that PO is a reality and this is a massive problem facing us all, but I still think there's much that can be done to avoid the catastrope that some are prophesising (and no, not through some magical new energy source). However, I'm always re-evaluating my own views based on what I read (Matthew Simmon's book was definitely a real eye-opener).
-
Interfector
- Wood
-
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sat 21 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
-
by Gothor » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:20:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Interfector', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y that I mean, anyone who believes that the era of cheap oil is over, and that life will probably get steadily tougher for the majority of people, but doesn't think that we'll be resorting to cannibalism to survive within a decade, but that could be a potential scenario in the future if the right action isn't taken now.
When did the aftermath of peak oil become a faith-based topic?
Do I BELIEVE that the vast majority of the third, second and first world will be drowned into poverty by stagflation within the next 5 years? I might, but that doesn't mean a god damn thing unless I can prove it with facts and figures. This isn't a question of belief, it is a question of mathematical data leading to a logical conclusion...
If we're going to base our arguments on this forum solely on belief, then what are we going to achieve? Definitely no serious argument if that's the case.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing that PO is a reality and this is a massive problem facing us all, but I still think there's much that can be done to avoid the catastrope that some are prophesising (and no, not through some magical new energy source). However, I'm always re-evaluating my own views based on what I read (Matthew Simmon's book was definitely a real eye-opener).
with that post I feel compelled to become MONTE...you're wrong...(sorry dude). Peace love dove wont cut it...drop the hippy shit then we can talk.
-
Gothor
- Peat
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
-
by davep » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:23:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Interfector', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y that I mean, anyone who believes that the era of cheap oil is over, and that life will probably get steadily tougher for the majority of people, but doesn't think that we'll be resorting to cannibalism to survive within a decade, but that could be a potential scenario in the future if the right action isn't taken now.
When did the aftermath of peak oil become a faith-based topic?
Do I BELIEVE that the vast majority of the third, second and first world will be drowned into poverty by stagflation within the next 5 years? I might, but that doesn't mean a god damn thing unless I can prove it with facts and figures. This isn't a question of belief, it is a question of mathematical data leading to a logical conclusion...
If we're going to base our arguments on this forum solely on belief, then what are we going to achieve? Definitely no serious argument if that's the case.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing that PO is a reality and this is a massive problem facing us all, but I still think there's much that can be done to avoid the catastrope that some are prophesising (and no, not through some magical new energy source). However, I'm always re-evaluating my own views based on what I read (Matthew Simmon's book was definitely a real eye-opener).
with that post I feel compelled to become MONTE...you're wrong...(sorry dude). Peace love dove wont cut it...drop the hippy crap then we can talk.
As I mentioned in the culling the herd thread, prove that we're in overshoot before going into Monte mode.
Culling the herd
What we think, we become.
-
davep
- Senior Moderator
-
- Posts: 4579
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
-
by Gothor » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:28:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Interfector', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y that I mean, anyone who believes that the era of cheap oil is over, and that life will probably get steadily tougher for the majority of people, but doesn't think that we'll be resorting to cannibalism to survive within a decade, but that could be a potential scenario in the future if the right action isn't taken now.
When did the aftermath of peak oil become a faith-based topic?
Do I BELIEVE that the vast majority of the third, second and first world will be drowned into poverty by stagflation within the next 5 years? I might, but that doesn't mean a god damn thing unless I can prove it with facts and figures. This isn't a question of belief, it is a question of mathematical data leading to a logical conclusion...
If we're going to base our arguments on this forum solely on belief, then what are we going to achieve? Definitely no serious argument if that's the case.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing that PO is a reality and this is a massive problem facing us all, but I still think there's much that can be done to avoid the catastrope that some are prophesising (and no, not through some magical new energy source). However, I'm always re-evaluating my own views based on what I read (Matthew Simmon's book was definitely a real eye-opener).
with that post I feel compelled to become MONTE...you're wrong...(sorry dude). Peace love dove wont cut it...drop the hippy crap then we can talk.
As I mentioned upthread, prove that we're in overshoot before going into Monte mode. You're kidding? What, you want some pablam shoved down your throat? What planet do you live on? The dark Continent is doing so wellllllll, don't you think?
-
Gothor
- Peat
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
-
by davep » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:31:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Interfector', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y that I mean, anyone who believes that the era of cheap oil is over, and that life will probably get steadily tougher for the majority of people, but doesn't think that we'll be resorting to cannibalism to survive within a decade, but that could be a potential scenario in the future if the right action isn't taken now.
When did the aftermath of peak oil become a faith-based topic?
Do I BELIEVE that the vast majority of the third, second and first world will be drowned into poverty by stagflation within the next 5 years? I might, but that doesn't mean a god damn thing unless I can prove it with facts and figures. This isn't a question of belief, it is a question of mathematical data leading to a logical conclusion...
If we're going to base our arguments on this forum solely on belief, then what are we going to achieve? Definitely no serious argument if that's the case.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing that PO is a reality and this is a massive problem facing us all, but I still think there's much that can be done to avoid the catastrope that some are prophesising (and no, not through some magical new energy source). However, I'm always re-evaluating my own views based on what I read (Matthew Simmon's book was definitely a real eye-opener).
with that post I feel compelled to become MONTE...you're wrong...(sorry dude). Peace love dove wont cut it...drop the hippy crap then we can talk.
As I mentioned upthread, prove that we're in overshoot before going into Monte mode. You're kidding? What, you want some pablam shoved down your throat? What planet do you live on? The dark Continent is doing so wellllllll, don't you think?
I edited my post to point to the relevant thread.
Monte's position is based on the assumption that we are in overshoot. However his proof for this is flimsy (i.e. not a proof). So before going off on a rant, try getting the basics right. Again, I ask you to prove that we are in overshoot.
What we think, we become.
-
davep
- Senior Moderator
-
- Posts: 4579
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
-
by Gothor » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:35:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Interfector', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y that I mean, anyone who believes that the era of cheap oil is over, and that life will probably get steadily tougher for the majority of people, but doesn't think that we'll be resorting to cannibalism to survive within a decade, but that could be a potential scenario in the future if the right action isn't taken now.
When did the aftermath of peak oil become a faith-based topic?
Do I BELIEVE that the vast majority of the third, second and first world will be drowned into poverty by stagflation within the next 5 years? I might, but that doesn't mean a god damn thing unless I can prove it with facts and figures. This isn't a question of belief, it is a question of mathematical data leading to a logical conclusion...
If we're going to base our arguments on this forum solely on belief, then what are we going to achieve? Definitely no serious argument if that's the case.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing that PO is a reality and this is a massive problem facing us all, but I still think there's much that can be done to avoid the catastrope that some are prophesising (and no, not through some magical new energy source). However, I'm always re-evaluating my own views based on what I read (Matthew Simmon's book was definitely a real eye-opener).
with that post I feel compelled to become MONTE...you're wrong...(sorry dude). Peace love dove wont cut it...drop the hippy crap then we can talk.
As I mentioned upthread, prove that we're in overshoot before going into Monte mode. You're kidding? What, you want some pablam shoved down your throat? What planet do you live on? The dark Continent is doing so wellllllll, don't you think?
I edited my post to point to the relevant thread.
Monte's position is based on the assumption that we are in overshoot. However his proof for this is flimsy (i.e. not a proof). So before going off on a rant, try getting the basics right. Again, I ask you to prove that we are in overshoot.
OK...What data would you consider as empiricle proof?
-
Gothor
- Peat
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
-
by davep » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:37:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', 'O')K...What data would you consider as empiricle proof?
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. Monte's position isn't about data, it's based on an interpretation of Liebig's Law.
Banging on about Liebig's Law and phantom energy sources is not a proof.
What we think, we become.
-
davep
- Senior Moderator
-
- Posts: 4579
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
-
by Gothor » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:40:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', 'O')K...What data would you consider as empiricle proof?
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.
Banging on about Liebig's Law and phantom energy sources is not a proof.
OMG you're a complete douchebag. State your case. What proof do you require to prove we're in overshoot? You keep asking for proof, yet refuse to define the rubric in which [yet undefined proof is valid] would meet your requirements.
-
Gothor
- Peat
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
-
by davep » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:42:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', 'O')K...What data would you consider as empiricle proof?
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.
Banging on about Liebig's Law and phantom energy sources is not a proof.
OMG you're a complete douchebag. State your case. What proof do you require to prove we're in overshoot? You keep asking for proof, yet refuse to define the rubric in which [yet undefined proof is valid] would meet your requirements.
First off, stop the ad-homs.
Monte's position is that we're in overshoot because we used a phantom energy source (oil) to get to our current population levels. He states that Liebig's Law means that we are in overshoot due to this phantom energy source and that anything in overshoot will die off. Do you agree with this analysis?
What we think, we become.
-
davep
- Senior Moderator
-
- Posts: 4579
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
-
by Gothor » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:47:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', 'O')K...What data would you consider as empiricle proof?
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.
Banging on about Liebig's Law and phantom energy sources is not a proof.
OMG you're a complete douchebag. State your case. What proof do you require to prove we're in overshoot? You keep asking for proof, yet refuse to define the rubric in which [yet undefined proof is valid] would meet your requirements.
First off, stop the ad-homs.
Monte's position is that we're in overshoot because we used a phantom energy source (oil) to get to our current population levels. He states that Liebig's Law means that we are in overshoot due to this phantom energy source and that anything in overshoot will die off. Do you agree with this analysis?
lol so you are fragile now? Aren't all your posts ad-hom attacks against Monte? Jesus where did all smart people go? And P.S., where did I ad-hom attack you (please provide link). Calling you a douchebad? hah well here's an ad-hom attack for you...only a little cunt would hide behind that ...must suck to be you
-
Gothor
- Peat
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
-
by davep » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:50:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', 'O')K...What data would you consider as empiricle proof?
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.
Banging on about Liebig's Law and phantom energy sources is not a proof.
OMG you're a complete douchebag. State your case. What proof do you require to prove we're in overshoot? You keep asking for proof, yet refuse to define the rubric in which [yet undefined proof is valid] would meet your requirements.
First off, stop the ad-homs.
Monte's position is that we're in overshoot because we used a phantom energy source (oil) to get to our current population levels. He states that Liebig's Law means that we are in overshoot due to this phantom energy source and that anything in overshoot will die off. Do you agree with this analysis?
lol so you are fragile now? Aren't all your posts ad-hom attacks against Monte? Jesus where did all smart people go? And P.S., where did I ad-hom attack you (please provide link).
Stop going off on tangents please. In order to do a Monte (as you suggested), you need to show why you think we're in overshoot. Because if we're not in overshoot, Monte's arguments fall apart. His whole argument is based on this assumption.
So, if you agree with him, let me know why you think we're in overshoot.
What we think, we become.
-
davep
- Senior Moderator
-
- Posts: 4579
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
-
by Gothor » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:51:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', 'O')K...What data would you consider as empiricle proof?
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.
Banging on about Liebig's Law and phantom energy sources is not a proof.
OMG you're a complete douchebag. State your case. What proof do you require to prove we're in overshoot? You keep asking for proof, yet refuse to define the rubric in which [yet undefined proof is valid] would meet your requirements.
First off, stop the ad-homs.
Monte's position is that we're in overshoot because we used a phantom energy source (oil) to get to our current population levels. He states that Liebig's Law means that we are in overshoot due to this phantom energy source and that anything in overshoot will die off. Do you agree with this analysis?
lol so you are fragile now? Aren't all your posts ad-hom attacks against Monte? Jesus where did all smart people go? And P.S., where did I ad-hom attack you (please provide link). Calling you a douchebad? hah well here's an ad-hom attack for you...only a little ***** would hide behind that ...must suck to be you
Back to the topic...what proof would satisfy you?
-
Gothor
- Peat
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
-
by davep » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:53:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', 'O')K...What data would you consider as empiricle proof?
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.
Banging on about Liebig's Law and phantom energy sources is not a proof.
OMG you're a complete douchebag. State your case. What proof do you require to prove we're in overshoot? You keep asking for proof, yet refuse to define the rubric in which [yet undefined proof is valid] would meet your requirements.
First off, stop the ad-homs.
Monte's position is that we're in overshoot because we used a phantom energy source (oil) to get to our current population levels. He states that Liebig's Law means that we are in overshoot due to this phantom energy source and that anything in overshoot will die off. Do you agree with this analysis?
lol so you are fragile now? Aren't all your posts ad-hom attacks against Monte? Jesus where did all smart people go? And P.S., where did I ad-hom attack you (please provide link). Calling you a douchebad? hah well here's an ad-hom attack for you...only a little ***** would hide behind that ...must suck to be you
Back to the topic...what proof would satisfy you?
Whatever you've got.
What we think, we become.
-
davep
- Senior Moderator
-
- Posts: 4579
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
-
by Narz » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:57:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I') mean the idea of voluntary population reduction, through birth control. We can't get that working right now owing to interference from thickheaded Christians, so it looks like it'll be up to Nature to put things into balance, barring your renewable civilization or some left field breakthrough in fusion.
That would definitely be a good thing. I'd support a planetary limit (not a hard & fast limit but heavy economic consequences for breaking it) of 1 child per person (two per couple but if you had one with one partner you couldn't have another with a 2nd partner).
The thing about Monte is that he's over & over said that "lowering birth rate is not enough, we need to raise the death rate". That alone makes this site look like some sort of murder/suicide cult.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'R')ead up on Julian Simon.
Trillions of people, all owing to our ingenuity. Sic.
Oh yeah, Julian Simon is a douche. He's like the polar opposite extreme of Monte.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it”
-
Narz
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: the belly of the beast (New Jersey)
-
by Gothor » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 03:57:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', 'O')K...What data would you consider as empiricle proof?
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.
Banging on about Liebig's Law and phantom energy sources is not a proof.
OMG you're a complete douchebag. State your case. What proof do you require to prove we're in overshoot? You keep asking for proof, yet refuse to define the rubric in which [yet undefined proof is valid] would meet your requirements.
First off, stop the ad-homs.
Monte's position is that we're in overshoot because we used a phantom energy source (oil) to get to our current population levels. He states that Liebig's Law means that we are in overshoot due to this phantom energy source and that anything in overshoot will die off. Do you agree with this analysis?
lol so you are fragile now? Aren't all your posts ad-hom attacks against Monte? Jesus where did all smart people go? And P.S., where did I ad-hom attack you (please provide link). Calling you a douchebad? hah well here's an ad-hom attack for you...only a little ***** would hide behind that ...must suck to be you
Back to the topic...what proof would satisfy you?
Whatever you've got. oh...I'm sorry, I thought you wanted a serious debate. But I realize this is just a crazy (do you golf?), cat and mouse game. Cheers.
-
Gothor
- Peat
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Mon 14 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
-
by davep » Fri 25 Jul 2008, 04:28:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gothor', 'O')K...What data would you consider as empiricle proof?
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.
Banging on about Liebig's Law and phantom energy sources is not a proof.
OMG you're a complete douchebag. State your case. What proof do you require to prove we're in overshoot? You keep asking for proof, yet refuse to define the rubric in which [yet undefined proof is valid] would meet your requirements.
First off, stop the ad-homs.
Monte's position is that we're in overshoot because we used a phantom energy source (oil) to get to our current population levels. He states that Liebig's Law means that we are in overshoot due to this phantom energy source and that anything in overshoot will die off. Do you agree with this analysis?
lol so you are fragile now? Aren't all your posts ad-hom attacks against Monte? Jesus where did all smart people go? And P.S., where did I ad-hom attack you (please provide link). Calling you a douchebad? hah well here's an ad-hom attack for you...only a little ***** would hide behind that ...must suck to be you
Back to the topic...what proof would satisfy you?
Whatever you've got. oh...I'm sorry, I thought you wanted a serious debate. But I realize this is just a crazy (do you golf?), cat and mouse game. Cheers.
Not at all. Those who advocate the scientific inevitability of die-off have the burden of proof upon them. It's quite simple.
I'm not saying that things will necessarily go well. I'm just arguing against the "we're in overshoot" mantra as a supposed scientific fact.
What we think, we become.
-
davep
- Senior Moderator
-
- Posts: 4579
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Europe
-
Return to Open Topic Discussion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
