Lol again with the fake news. Are you pretending to be Trump or whats going on here ?

The Holocaust – between 4 and 17 million deaths (racial motivation)
Holodomor and Soviet famine – between 2.5 and 8 million deaths (political motivation)
European colonisation of the Americas – between 2 and 100 million deaths
Nigerian Civil War – 1 to 3 million deaths (ethnic motivation)
Cambodian Genocide – 1 to 3 million deaths (Communist ideological motivation)
Rwandan genocide of 1994 – 500k to 1 million deaths (ethnic motivation)
Expulsion of Germans after WW2 – 500k to 3 million deaths (ethnic motivation)
Zunghar Genocide – 480 to 600 thousand deaths (ethnic motivation)
Circassian Genocide – 400k to 1.5 million deaths (political and ethnic motivation)
Armenian Genocide – 1.5 million deaths (ethnic and religious (against the Christian minority) motivation)
Decossackisation – 300 to 500 thousand deaths (political and ethnic motivation)
Assyrian genocide – 275 to 750 thousand deaths (ethnic and religious (against the Christian minority) motivation)
Utashe Genocide (aka The Holocaust in Croatia) – 270 to 655 thousand deaths (racial motivation)
Greek Genocide – 200k to 1 million deaths (ethnic and religious (against the Christian minority) motivation)
Darfur Conflict – 178 to 400 thousand deaths (ethnic motivation).

These are the top 15 genocides according to death toll and of these. Christian minorities were actually on the receiving end of three of these genocides.

Another list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll

And another one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll


But hey. Facts don't matter for your kind of hate driven keyboard warriors.

Crap. I wanted to like this video.
Unfortunately this starts with bad information and gets worse...claiming Yellowstone is the largest super volcano....but Yellowstone's biggest eruption was 2,800 km3 almost 9000000 years ago.... Toba in Sumatra erupted 13,200 km3 only 75000 years ago. The most recent Yellowstone eruption was around 640000 years ago and only 1000km3.
Even Taupo ejected 1170km3 in that last super eruption, far more than Yellowstone's most recent.

Where did they get the idea that an ash cloud would spread in every direction evenly?! It's just wrong. The ash cloud would be blown East by upper atmospheric winds...eventually circling the globe but not expanding to the West very far....just like previous eruptions did.

They mention America going abroad to get food in such an event, then go on to mention global dimming, temperature drops, and sulfur contamination damaging crops...but don't put the two together. In such an event, no country on earth could feed it's own population, much less have a surplus to sell to the worst hit area, America. In 1815, the year without a summer caused world wide famine, epidemics, and a halt to shipping because winter ice packs remained through the summer in many places, and crop failures and epidemics continued for years afterwards. That eruption was only 160–213km3 and there were under 1 billion people to feed on the planet.
A large Yellowstone eruption would be 4-10 times that size, with effects being worse and lasting longer, and there are around 8 times as many mouths to feed.
The largest eruption we know of was nearly 100 times the size of Tambora in 1815....and wasn't Yellowstone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

Edit: let's not forget the disruption to airlines for possibly years and interference with satellite signals like we've never experienced....and what does that sulphur do to an already acidic ocean?

I want to know his sources, because they don't jibe with historical records.

No....with a "but".

I was disturbed in the 70's about how people were changing the planet, but didn't yet understand the climate portion of that issue would be the most disastrous. (In my defense I was under 10).

I became concerned in the 90's-2000's when the scientific conclusions became overwhelmingly certain that CO² and other greenhouse gasses were destroying the atmosphere we relied on.

My concern quickly turned to anger at the realisation that people as a group were more inclined to argue over minutiae and ignorant theories and money rather than tackle the apocalyptic problem.

Soon that was mixed with depression at the realisation that it was too late even if we gave up CO² and methane today because the climate is slow to react and we had passed the point of no return and were actually still accelerating towards the cliff and arguing over the correct radio station for flying.

Today I'm at acceptance that humans will destroy the biosphere and likely themselves in the process, and have to be content with the knowledge that I didn't make it much worse (or at least made an educated effort to not make it worse), I likely won't live to see mass famine and water wars where I live, and didn't put anyone else in the horrific position of having to live through the worst. (No kids).

Feel better? ;-)

Well, that's not good.
*promote the idea of preparing for another massive African famine that could make Ethiopia in the 80's seem like a walk in the park.
Sadly it seems there's little in the way of actual preparation, even the exceptionally minimal plans to stop the infestation aren't being funded.
It's disgusting that the planet can't come up with $76 million to stop a famine, but instead has given only $20 million and only promised another $10 million.

This is another example of Conservative thinking. All these guys are concerned with is the right now, and the near future. The next quarter. They have no idea what they're talking about here.

China is expecting their population to increase by 300 million in the next thirty-ish years.

I'll say that again for the folks at the back:

China is expecting their population to increase by one United States of America worth of people by the 2050's.

We're talking about a country with a government founded by a workers' revolution, that has had a widespread famine in living memory. (During the Great Leap era.) This isn't ancient history.

They cannot allow "market forces" to dictate how and where people live in North America where fertile fields are plowed under to make room for sprawling suburbs.

That's why they're building. That is why they are building UP.

Young families will not be able to just go any buy a house in the suburbs. China, for the most part doesn't build suburbs. Suburbs waste space.

They need existing farmland to be protected to manage their food security. They don't want a famine, that's how you get a revolution. They don't want a revolution.

They want stability.

China doesn't worry about next quarter because they planned for that a decade ago. It's the next decades that they're planning for now---a timeframe these Conservative talking heads are incapable of understanding.

? Are you implying that famine and/or water shortages somehow preclude war and disease? I think they're major causes.

No, that's a myth. We have resources enough to do some amazing things if we properly apply them, not anything, and without the will to apply them, almost nothing. Having everything you need for success besides direction is a guarantee of failure.

Depends, if you remove the human factor and look only at total resources vs global need, there are still major logistic hurdles to just feeding everyone, not to mention resource problems if we want the biosphere to be healthy and not homogenized down to humans and our farm animals.

Odd, international law has been enforced since ww2 with only few exceptions with no WW3, only sanctions, bribes, and relatively minor skirmishes. I don't know where you get the idea that only a gun to the head might be coercive when a gun to the economy has worked so well for so long.

You should be hysterical. If you aren't shitting your pants over the state of the world, you aren't paying attention or you're absolutely delusional. Civilization and the habitatability of the planet are both on a clear path to collapse and people are busying themselves with arguments over will it be 50 years out or 100, or maybe 150 instead of making substantive changes to mitigate what's now unavoidable....or even prepare.
A hysterical voice is the only one I think indicates an understanding of the problem and total lack of a working solution.

We can still steer between the different possible future realities.
Like that large scale famine or water shortage is preferable to nuclear war or global deadly disease outbreak. Which will it be, food or water? Reality will get more unpleasant before it has a chance to improve. Can we outrun the population and ecosystem gun with science? Possibly. Problem is society and morals cant keep up.

We have resources to do ANYTHING. Send people to Mars. Make water out of thin air and grow tomatoes in the desert. The only thing in the way are nation states and their institutions, and human instincts. The only thing that keeps those in check is culture and morals. There is no such thing as international law unless you are willing to go to all out war to enforce it (not possible since WW2).

And the "leader of the free world" is busy building a wall around his office.

So we probably need to be deceived or else we would all be hysterical without antidepressants.

Still a hysterical voice is not the voice of reality for me.

@bcglorf Here's a tome for you....


It's certainly not (the only way). Converting to green energy sources stimulates the economy, it doesn't bankrupt it, and it makes it more efficient in the future thanks to lower energy costs. My solar system paid for itself in 8 years, giving me an expected 12 years of free electricity and hot water. Right wingers would tell you it will never pay for itself....utter bullshit.

Every gap in our knowledge I've ever seen that we have filled with data has made the estimates worse. Every one. Every IPCC report has raised the severity and shrunk the timeframe from the last report....but you stand on the last one that they admit was optimistic and incomplete by miles as if it's the final word and a gold standard. It just isn't. They themselves admit this.

The odds of catastrophic climate change is 100% in the next 0 years for many who have already died or been displaced by rising seas or famine or disease or lack of water or...... and that goes for all humanity in the next 50 because those who survive displacement will be refugees on the rest's doorsteps. Don't be ridiculous. If we found an asteroid guaranteed to hit in the next 50-100 years, and any possible solutions take a minimum of 50 years to implement with no surprises, and only then assuming we solve the myriad of technical issues we haven't solved in the last 100 years of trying and only if we can put the resources needed into a solution, not considering the constantly worsening barrage of smaller asteroids and the effects on resources and civilisation, we would put all our resources into solutions. That's where I think we are, except we still have many claiming there's no asteroid coming and those that already hit are fake news....including those in the highest offices making the decisions.

Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections, they tell you they are doing it, only including data they are certain of, not new measurements or functions. They do not fill in the gaps, they leave them empty. Gaps like methane melt that could soon be more of a factor than human CO2, and 100% out of our control.

The AR5 report is so terrible, it was lambasted from day one as being incredibly naive and optimistic, and for not including what was then new data. Since its release, those complaints have been proven to be correct, in 5 years since its release ice melt rates have accelerated 60 years by their model. I wouldn't put a whit of confidence in it, it was terrible then, near criminally bad today. I'll take NOAA's estimates based on much newer science and guess that they, like nearly all others in the past, also don't know everything and are also likely underestimating wildly. Even the IPCC AR5 report includes the possibility of 3 ft rise by 2100 under their worst case (raised another 10% in this 2019 report, and expected to rise again by 2021, their next report), and their worst case models show less heat and melting than we are measuring already and doesn't include natural feedbacks because they can't model them accurately yet so just left them out (but noted they will have a large effect, but it's not quantitative yet so not included). Long and short, their worst case scenario is likely optimistic as reality already outpaces their worst case models.

Again, the economy benefits from new energy production in multiple ways. Exxon is not the global economy.

It took 100 years for the impact of our pollution to be felt by most (some still ignore it today). Even the short term features like methane take 25+ years to run their cycles, so what we do today takes that long to start working.

If people continue to drag their feet and challenge the science with supposition, insisting the best case scenario of optimistic studies are the worst we should plan for, we're doomed....and what they're doing is actually worse than that. The power plants built or under construction today put us much higher than 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with their expected emissions without ever building 1 more, and we're building more. Without fantastic scientific breakthroughs that may never come, breakthroughs your plan relies on for our survival, what we've already built puts us beyond the IPCC worst case in their operational lifetimes.

There's a problem with that...I'm good with using real science to identify them without political obstruction and confusion, the difference being we need to be prepared for decisive action once they're identified. So far, we have plans to develop those actions, but that's it. In the event of a "surprise" asteroid, we're done. We just hope they're rare.
This one, however, is an asteroid that is guaranteed to hit if we do nothing, some say hit in 30 years, some say 80. Only morons say it won't hit at all, do nothing.
Climate change is an asteroid/comet in our orbit that WILL hit earth. We are already being hit by ejecta from it's coma causing disasters for millions. You suggest we don't start building a defense until we are certain of it's exact tonnage and the date it will crash to earth because it's expensive and our data incomplete. That plan leaves us too late to change the trajectory. The IPCC said we need to deploy our system in 8-10 years to have a 30-60% chance of changing the trajectory under perfect conditions....you seem to say "wait, that's expensive, let's give it some time and ignore that deadline". I say even just a continent killer is bad enough to do whatever it takes to stop, because it's cheaper with less loss of life and infinitely less suffering than a 'wait and see exactly when it will kill us, we might have space elevators in 10 years so it might only kill 1/2 of us and the rest might survive that cometary winter in space (yes at exponentially higher cost and loss of life and ecology than developing the system today, but that won't be on my dime so Fuck it).' attitude.

Nope. I am implying that in the late 1700's, the wealth inequality in France was combined with widespread poverty and starvation, and such conditions do not exist today in the US. The suggestion (Newtboy's) that we should fear a revolution today is unsupported. Back then, half of all children then died before the age of 10, many due to the famine they were experiencing. We just don't have the kind of poverty today in the US that the French peasants endured in 1780.

Trumpian Baby Prisons....happened earlier than I predicted, but I'm not in the least bit surprised.

This is being done to families legally seeking asylum, not just those caught entering illegally. Those people are going to have a multi billion dollar class action suit against America for multiple violations of the constitution and international laws.

Side note, word is that the Trump administration has changed the rules for asylum seekers, only those seeking asylum directly from their home countries government can apply now, so to all those Arab Christians fleeing Daesh that Trump invited and South Americans fleeing death threats from drug cartels (including cartels that that work with police and the government), and those fleeing war, warlords, famine, drought, even sea level rise destroying your country, indeed reportedly any thing besides improper publicly sanctioned certain death by government forces....you're SOL.....that leaves all of N Korea and little else.

Well, that's one step in the right direction that you now admit the undeniable fact that global temperatures are rising....finally.
Interesting, then what is your theory, seeing as natural cycles would have our temperatures falling right now, but since the industrial revolution they've been trending higher. You can't blame volcanos, there've been no massive volcanic releases to cause it, only minor ones that barely register.

Yes, true, the Paris accord is too little too late, that's not somehow condemnation of the idea that global climate change is man made. Only one nation even questions that, and really only <1/3 of that nation.
Did you ever watch An Inconvenient Truth....I don't think so, because it said no such thing, I think you're repeating what a talking head told you it said. He did say we would probably see obvious effects by now...and we do. He did not say we would all be dead, not even in 100 years.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are not still here, they are dead of famine and wars caused by, and causing, migrating populations. Most of East Africa is in severe drought as bad or worse than Ethiopia in the 80's, just like Gore warned would be increasingly more likely due to climate change, and India and Asia are threatened with losing their main sources of water because of accelerated glacial melting.

"Literally doom the human race."

I used to be a global warming denier, then a skeptic. I've come around that it is real and that it is caused in large part by human actions. I do admit that I'm still a bit skeptical about how catastrophic it would be to do nothing. Doom the human race? Nah. Decimate the human race (literal/historical definition of "decimate" meaning 10% dead)? Possible, but I think unlikely -- extremely unlikely unless deaths by famine/disease are wholly attributed to climate change. Lots and lots of people displaced over the next 100-200 years if, say, all polar and glacial ice melted (resulting in a ~70 meter sea level rise)? For sure. But they won't drown unless they are incapable of moving away from the ocean at a rate of at least a few meters per year.

In climate terms, a 4 year presidential term is a fraction of a second. In geological terms, 4 years is absolutely nothing. If the (admittedly terrible) climate policies of any single person, even one as powerful as the "leader of the free world" President of the United States over 4 years could literally doom the human race, we'd have been dead a LONG time ago.

I'm not saying it isn't important, and that it won't matter at all what Trump does with regards to climate, the EPA, etc. But even if you limit the timescale to sensible human terms (say, since the Industrial Revolution roughly 250 years ago), another 4 years, no matter how bad, aren't going to throw us over some sort of unrecoverable tipping point.

I do agree that unilateral disarmament is a difficult thing to achieve, but there are other arguments as to why it should be pursued. I am sure we agree on a lot of things on this subject, but let me at least put the other side out there:

1. America as the over achieving nation in the world has a duty to lead by example. How can the country with the largest nuclear arsenal expect other countries to start the process that we all signed up to? Hey France, why didn't you get rid of your 87 nukes? Well America, why haven't you touched that pile of 500? (making up numbers here to illustrate the point)

2. The US isn't worried about Best Korea nuking them because they would need a staging platform and a functional ballistic missile. They can be launched from subs, but NK isn't really your worry there. The most developed nations are the concern, and if you could get an agreement it could happen, with peacekeepers and mutually open inspections, and pressure on smaller countries to abide or be trade embargoed to stop them (which the west does/has done already). Unlikely as things are right now, i agree.

3. We have ageing equipment housing extremely dangerous explosives. They require a huge amount of maintenance and whatnot, costing billions. The UK has to replace their system soon to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. Imagine what kind of alternative modern anti-nuclear defence system we could develop using all that money and all our technology? That way we could be safe from nukes without using nukes and it would cost less in the long run.

Also if you claim your weapons as part of a defence, it's a bit of a giveaway that you're bullshitting if you then go off around the world antagonising other countries, knowing that they can't really fight back. So i think in fairness we should crack open that self-defence argument and see what percentage of it is referring to "a good offence".

Having said all that, binning all the US nukes overnight wouldn't be a great idea. The UK would be less of a target and safer without nukes imo, but the US would probably make the world a lot safer just by having less.

Let's be honest here, the amount of nukes we have is preposterous. No one could possibly have any reason to use that many, the potential for absolute worldwide devastation is far too high to need that many - you could potentially finish the world off in a nuclear winter, according to the average figures given, in about 100 'small' nukes. Not 100 each per country, but 100 total worldwide.

And remember, that doesn't mean you can use 90 and be safe. The figure 100 was enough to likely cause a global famine by causing temperature drops leading to crop failures. That doesn't account for extinction of animals and the devastation of the natural balance (which would lead to our eventual extinction) which can be wildly unpredictable. You could shoot 40 at a country, win the conflict, and cause the starvation of millions+ in your own (and other) countries for the next 20 odd years..... or worse.

He honeymooned in Russia.


Bernie Sanders is a Communist Sympathizer.

Bernie Sanders is the first Democrat who is honest about being a socialist. After all, with their policies demanding more and more government intrusion into our business and personal lives, they could only hide the truth of what they actually believe for that much longer. However, since socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried, Bernie even admitted that the word socialism has become somewhat of a hindrance. Of course, you could point out all the despotic Socialist regimes, and you’d be making a good point. However, Bernie would still disagree with you! Not because he doesn’t think the mass murder and famine were a bad thing, but a good one. That’s right. An interview with Bernie emerged where he praised Fidel Castro’s regime. If you think his rape fantasy essay was shocking, or his folk album was hard to stomach, just wait until you hear his opinion on Communist Dictators A lot of people don’t know this, but Bernie actually hung a Soviet Flag in office when he was mayor of Burlington. According to reporter Trevor Louden, Bernie hung the Soviet flag in his office to honor the Soviet sister city of Yaroslavl. You know, singing praises to the opposing side while you’re at war might seem treasonous to some, but if you’re a mayor of a major city, it’s perfectly acceptable and everyone will forget about it. No need to mention that the USSR was responsible for what some believe to be the biggest genocide in history. You’d be crazy to call Bernie a Communist. He only proudly hung their flag in his office.

Bernie Sanders did not only vacation in the Soviet Union, he honeymooned there. He described it as “strange honeymoon”. Once again, Sanders used the excuse that he did so in his town’s sister city of Yaroslavl. You have to wonder how much bad the Soviet Union could have done that Sanders was willing to overlook . Perhaps if Bernie loves Yaroslavl so much, he could do everyone a favor and move there.

So, the survivors of a famine (ie. the strongest ones) had strong children? There could be another explanation besides epigenetics...