Yes, we're overpopulated. That doesn't invalidate my arguments.

I gave examples of multiple cultures that do what you claim is impossible. I never implied Americans would accept a lower standard of living, only that it's the right thing to strive for, and coming like it or not.

I grow 75% of the produce for two people on 3/4 acres.

Masses of people are going to die unnecessarily. Period. This could be avoided, but won't be. Our choice is accept less now, or have nothing later.

The dependence on fossil fuels for agriculture could be quartered with some minor changes with little drop in output. The western world won't make the investment needed to make that a reality. Also, the fossil fuel needed to make fertilizers is not a significant amount....maybe as little as 3%of natural gas produced.

There are millions of hungry people now without access to the artificially supported agriculture system who relied on natural sources that no longer exist. Aren't you concerned about them?

Name one I listed not supported by science.

Food shortages are preferable to no food.

The 3' estimate is old, based on estimates already proven miserably wrong. Like I said, Greenland is melting as a rate they predicted to not happen until 2075.

When tens of millions must flee low lying areas, and all low lying farmland is underwater, and much of the rest in drought or flood, what do you think happens?

By 2100, all estimates show us far past the tipping points where human input is no longer the driving force. Even the IPCC said we have until 2030 or so to cut emissions in half, and we are not lowering emissions, we're raising them. 50 years out is 75 years late....but better than never.....but we aren't on that path at all. Investment in fossil fuel systems continues to accelerate thanks to emerging third world nations like China and India making the same mistakes the Western world made, but in greater quantities.

The IPCC report said if we don't immediately cut emissions today, by half in 11 years and to zero in 30, then negative emissions for the next 50 that we're on track to hit 3-6C rise by 2100 and raising that estimated temperature rise daily....4C gives the 3' sea level rise by 2100 with current models, but they are woefully inadequate and have proven to be vast underestimation of actual melting already.

We may develop the necessary tech, we won't develop the will to implement it. Indeed, we're at that point today....have been for decades.

Yep, sure, no sacrifices needed. You can have it all and more and let the next guy pay the bill. What if we're the last guys in line?

Funny, isn't that what the Paris climate accord is? Sane leaders giving such stupidity serious consideration, because they understand it's not stupidity it's reality. Granted, they don't go nearly far enough, but they did something more than just claim it will be fixed in the future by something that doesn't exist today and ignoring human behavior and all trends, because using/having less is simply unacceptable.

We need a nice pandemic to cull us by 9/10 and a few intelligent Maos to drive us back to sustainability. We won't get either in time.

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

Yes, an ambush flood of tens of thousands of useless documents on the eve of the confirmation with no time to read them and still no release of tens or hundreds of thousands of consequential documents from his time at the Whitehouse.
What are they hiding?
More garbage isn't better. If you pay me to care for your lawn and I come diarrhea all over your living room, then say I gave you more fertilizer than my last 5 customers combined, will you be happy?

In late summer, the scooter rut begins.
This can be a trying time for owners, as the immature males tend to charge uncontrollably at the fertile females in an attempt to gain enough speed to mount them. If the male doesn't come in hot enough, the female will reject them, as we see here.

Next, as our traffic safari continues, we'll take a late night excursion in hopes of catching a glimpse of the rare wild sideshow mating dances.

Don't talk to me about abortion you dumb prick. Laws preventing abortion in my state are keeping me from having a family.

That's right. If my wife and I could have abortions, our family would be bigger now.

Some people need to be able to have abortions. It's not murder any more than me jerking off and my wife having a period. Laws against fatricide are wrong. You don't get a fertilization certificate, you get a birth certificate.

It's like I'm talking to a Putin sock puppet.

Carnivorous is the wrong word. Carnivorous plants have digestion systems that allow them to take nutrients directly from their victims.
Flagitious or sanguinary self fertilizing seems a more appropriate label for his hypothesis.

You are as diluted as Newtboy. Guns are regulated to great extent.

You can make all guns illegal and still bad guys will use them. Better to let good guys have access to them also.

The bump stock ad-on this guy used would never be useful except in the situation he was in.. No accuracy just spraying lead down stream..

In America guns are as plentiful as roaches... impossible to rid yourself of them.


The guy could have used any other method using legally obtained items ( like his guns). He could have use Nitrogen fertilizer like the Oklahoma city bombing back in 1995.

If you want to kill people your going to find a way.

The guy appears to be more mental than anything else. Better to improve mental health laws and let finds/ workers to have a anonymous line to ATF to say hey this guy might be a danger to community.. And let that be a trigger when/if he applies to get a gun - which entail a more thorough background check

I'd have to beg to differ on America having similar Aboriginal/White conflict. IMO the divide between aboriginal/white in Canada is actually much deeper, and with a greater potential for future violence than even black/white relations in the US. The conditions on Canadian native reserves are MUCH worse than in the US. It's severe enough that the first time a Canadian is driving past an America aboriginal reserve they have to ask twice to confirm it really is one. The general state of broken down infrastructure, housing and in general is so bad it's even visibly unavoidable up here in Canada. In the US you can't tell you've gone past anything different unless something culturally relevant is posted up.

It's also made worse by systematic segregation that the reserve system in Canada creates so any seed of racism has lots of fertile ground and lacks any reference to counter balance it.

When a car is stolen is something goes missing on farms near a reserve the immediate default assumption is that someone 'aboriginal' took it. It's only made worse when more often than the statistical distribution should dictate, it actually was someone from a reserve that did it. Recently a car of young aboriginal kids pulled into a farmers yard and one of them was shot and killed. They said they had a flat and were just looking for help. The case is on going, but the courts have heard that the neighbour had already put a call in to police about a theft minutes before the shooting though. Of course, white folks on the internet made such helpful comments as suggesting the farmers mistake was 'leaving any witnesses'. It's also not just white racism against natives though, the racism against settlers(whites) amongst aboriginal populations can be just as ugly and rampant. When Canada decided to have our border crossing guards carry guns, we had to close a border crossing that was in a Mohawk reserve because they wouldn't allow it. The border station there was already riddled with bullet holes before this. If the government DID try and enforce the same law there as the rest of the border, people were going to die.

The deeply conservative (!) "Die Welt" in Germany has two pieces by Sy Hersh, completely debunking the supposed chemical attack by the Syrians at Khan Sheikhoun. It also paints a highly disturbing picture of the decision-making process in both the White House and the Pentagon.

The first one is a rather short conversation that includes all the goodies: the chemical attack in Syria was, once again, not a chemical attack by Syrian forces -- they hit a stash, just like both the Syrians and the Russians claimed at the time.

The piece also details that US forces are keenly aware that it was not a chemical attack, that the response (Tomahawk strike on Syrian airfield) was equally ridiculous and dangerous, and that the bellicose stance of the US vis-a-vis Russia is complete lunacy.

The longer piece by Hersh himself and displays in great details the disconnect between Trump and his military advisers, as well as between the upper echelons of the military and the troops in the region.

Just a snippet about the strike itself:

A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground.

And the media went along for the ride, for the umpteenth time. Remember Brian Williams fawning about the beauty of the weapons?

At some point, this volatile mixture of warmongering and McCarthyism is going to start WW3, and they'll blame it on the Russians.

I think this quote illustrates the issue quite nicely:
“Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: ‘We have a problem and let’s look into it.’ He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria.”

@Diogenes

You're kind of unfairly painting it as a choice between division by "largest" or division by 7 billion complicated individual plans. What i was talking about was division by number of people that live there. That way you're not unfairly giving US citizens a "god" given right to pollute the Earth more. Maybe that's why China is gaming the system, if the system was gaming them.

Your best argument would be to say it's by size of economy and presumably you need the industry and manufacture and all the pollution that goes along with it, so US gets #1 spot. I would argue that the effect is counteracted by two things.

First, China is a less developed nation than the US. Some Chinese cities obviously pollute far, far too much but in rural areas there may not be the skills/infrastructure for higher technology energy production. America having a larger economy and being more developed is better placed to invest, update and pollute less per person.

Second, America is a modern democracy and can be held to account by its citizens, whereas China is relatively oppressive, far more likely to imprison protesters, and not strictly subject to election. You guys can do something, so do it. Or at least let a Chinese guy count as much as an American

It could also be that China doesn't give a shit, of course, and would go off on a fertility drive or something.. Or then again maybe they'd improve their mortality rates. Who knows.

Many, if not most, that oppose places like Planned Parenthood, and oppose most methods of birth control, oppose it, because they think it encourages promiscuity. Sex is of course limited only to marriage in their world view, which is why heavy red states have abstinence only education... which tends to result in them having the highest teen and repeat teen pregnancy rates. And some would argue that the only function of sex is for procreation. The Bible even forbid pulling out (Gen. 38:8–10), though one could argue that was for one guy in particular. Anyhow, basically they see pregnancy as part of God's design and purpose for sex. The fact it has physical pleasures, is a gift from God for the married couple.

In the case of IUDs, they believe the old myth that the IUD causes abortions, that it lowers the chance that a fertilized egg will implant. The reality is that it doesn't at all, at least for modern, non-copper clad IUDs. Once upon a time, the old copper ones did have a very small impact on the chance a fertilized egg could implant, and even modern ones that have far less copper cladding on a wire around it, can have a very very small chance of decreasing implantation. But those ones aren't really used that often. Basically, the IUD is the most effective form of birth control, but it is opposed to stereotypes and lies. Modern IUDs work to prevent fertilization in the first place, via the hormones in them and design, if an egg is fertilized, it still has the same chance of implantation... however the chance of an egg being fertilized is very low, as sperm mobility is seriously hurt, and of course the woman's body lowers egg release too.

Plan B also doesn't stop implantation, or if it does, it is near modern copper clad wire IUDs (and more recent evidence shows it is likely even far less than that). It prevents the women's body from releasing an egg... if an egg is released already, it won't do any good. However, once again, facts don't matter to those on the right, and they promote it as a morning after abortion pill.

Of course, a healthy young woman, who's optimally fertile, only 30-40% of her fertilized eggs will implant, meaning that God Himself aborts about 60-70% of babies (since they define it as a full baby and human life at conception) in optimally fertile women. Now.. you have to add to that, natural miscarriages for other reasons... and the odds of having a baby really are against you naturally. (There are links to medical journals here: http://ask.metafilter.com/203529/What-of-fertilized-human-eggs-die and in this Healthcare Triage video about IUDs: https://videosift.com/video/IUDs-Are-Pretty-Great-So-Why-Arent-They-More-Popular)

I find the reddit thread to be more logical. I pretty much tossed out credibility for the video, and the freethought link, when I noticed their primary source were people from the 'Delta Paranormal Project'. Plus, I mean, statements like "...Mississippians know better than to taste the bitter fruit fertilized with the blood of atrocity." and "excruciating conditions akin to Nazi concentration camps" don't exactly lend themselves to rational discourse.

I believe we did create camps to most likely protect the former slaves from a hostile populace of southerners angry over the loss of the war and the freeing of the slaves. There is a good likelihood that 1000 or so freed slaves died from conditions in those camps. I can almost guarantee that if they had been left to wander the area unprotected, you would have likely been able to walk across the Mississippi River on the bodies of dead former slaves killed by a vengeful local populace.

That's ONE way to fertilize the field. Bonus points for the festive TP streamers.

To answer your question in the description, the waste water contains phosphogypsum which is a radioactive byproduct from the production of phosphate (sulphuric acid is reacted with phosphate rock to produce phosphoric acid used for fertilizer production).

The radioactivity comes from naturally occurring uranium and radium in the phosphate ore. Central Florida phosphogypsum averages 26 pCi/g radium, and the EPA prohibites its use, but further north in Florida the phosphogypsum has an average concentration of less than 10 pCi/g radium which can be used as an agricultural amendment, but for no other use.

Also, the European news that I saw reported 980 million litres of contaminated water which is only slightly higher than the 225 million u.s. gallons reported elsewhere.

Most of the population of the world is still impoverished by a lack of access to electric power, motor transport, manufactured goods, chemical fertilizers ... Stuff you undoubtedly take for granted. Climate change is a gigantic distraction and a power grab, and focusing on it will result in many poor people remaining poor.

There are real problems to deal with, for one, fossil fuels really are present only in limited supply, and we'll have to somehow stop using them eventually. Climate hysteria does not help.