/sci/ - Science & Math

Homosexuality?
I thought that psychology had problems explaining homosexuality.
Or are you talking about some sort of weird homosexuality denial; the religious nuts who try and cure homosexuals?
Most of the world is well beyond that now.

>the AMERICAN media
fix'd.

not everyone lives in Dumbfuckistan.

Homosexuality is gay.

>>1718723
Bit of both. Explanations exist, and the "phenomena" has existed in widespread form throughout every culture in the world, and there are some 1200+ different species of animals who engage in that whole mess as well.

"Homosexuality ain't natural!"/"It's a plague brought forth by <political/cultural/racial group>!" and similiar bullshit _should_ be dead and nonexistant.

>>1718738
Hurr.

>>1718730
Praise be to Sagan for that.

I also get upset about global warming deniers in the media. My reaction is to send a flame e-mail and stop watching that show. There are some TV shows that I simply don't bother with anymore. Most recently I aborted a show called '60 Minutes' after they did a pile of shit on 2012.

homosexuality is a genetic predispostition as it occurs in animals outside mammals with varied social types.
As for evolution, i know of no other theory that has any bit of credibility and can stand against it.
Global warming is happening but not due to humans, we just think we are important enough to do something big.

http://www.wonderlandavenue.com/c180828p17024878.2.html

wat

>>1718776

That is exactly why I stopped watching television altogether about 3 years ago.

And I haven't looked back.

And they do it because controversy sells. And because there are idiots that actually want to hear the conspiracy theories because they make more sense to them than an actual explanation.

I think most people are not o concerned about homosexuality but with its friends such as peadophillia, drug use, homosexuality and crime.

Global warming has not been proven.

Evolution allows us to see God in action.

I remember this one time reading about an evolutionary explanation of lesbians.

I can't find it now. Darn it.

>>1718785
>97% of the actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change.

>The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

Meh. I'm just happy that people aren't denying it outright anymore, but still...

>>1718785
just because animals show homosexual behaviour doesn't make any case for genetic predisposition, it could still be purely environmental. this isn't a homophobic view, i used to think gayness was genetic then i met a gay psychology professor who said it was bullshit - apparently there's a strangely hushed up correllation between mother-son relationships and gay dudes. He didn't mention lesbians, but only because he thought women were an abomination (in a half-jokey way).

true.

>>1718808
GTFO

On an unrelated note, Global Warming is probably real but not anthropomorphic.

I heard that scientists want to build a big global warming detector under switzerland. Will cost billions of pounds, take an unspecified number of years and may notfind anything.

>>1718818

you're probably right but you're probably gonna attract the "informed" with their "studies" disproving you


LOLOLOL

>>1718817
everything in a living organism is a case for genetic predisposition, you have the hair color you do because of genes etc. also, psychology = psuedoscience. and what DOES show correlation is that different families have them across all the continents, IN DIFFERENT environments so no, it CANT be environmental can it?
>>1718808
>>1718808
0/10

>>1718817
There's no hush-up or conspiracy whatsoever.

Women who give birth to multiple sons have a significantly increased chance of giving birth to homosexual boys.

>>1718842
>implying hair colour is a predisposition and not genetically determined

wtf you on? not everything is genetic fewl and it's not like i said genetics doesn't exist. FEWL

>>1718812
>>1718812
a single volcano dumps more Co2 than all of humanity EVER. and the majority thought the earth was flat once so the argument from majority is null.

Okay, suppose you find the gay gene or the evil spirits that cause TEH GAYZ.

Then what? Homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality will always be present in any and every society.

Discussing the cause of homosexuality is the epitome of irrelevance.

>>1718847

I read somewhere that their body gets used to containing another alien male body inside which in turn makes the child less male and more female. Something like it puts less and less strain on the fetus.

Or I'm just misunderstood it.

>>1718853
[citation needed]

And even still, the earth has many carbon sinks that account for natural sources of CO2; even with less it's still possible for us to disrupt things.

>>1718847
Not every mother who has sons has a dysfunctional relationship with a son

but the correlation between dysfunctional relationships between mother and son, and homosexuality is eery.

Not every dysfunctional relationship means a gay son, but it severely increases odds.

Just because it's not genetic doesn't make it wrong.

It is true that the more older brothers you have, the greater the chance of being gay.

It s also true that the older the mother, the higher chance of having a retard.

So why do we try to cure/kill retards but not gays?

>>1718853
Doesn't change the fact that the massive majority of the very scientists who spend decades of their lives learning about, studying, researching, and experimenting with the matter in question hold the (scientifically backed) view that humanity has a significant effect.


Also: >According to the US Geological Survey, however, estimates are that human activities generate more than 130 times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes

>>1718871

>sage
hah

>Just because it's not genetic doesn't make it wrong.

And who was implying anything remotely like that? U MAD?

>>1718852
>implying genes dont determine every cells placement in your body and therefore determine everything about you. Also birds dont have a culture so yes it is entirely genetic when it comes to the lesser species that lack a prefrontal cortex. oops, somebody forgot their neurology. and lastly, genetic predispostion is a term meaning "most likely" when creating hybrids.

>>1718797
I agree manufactured drama to appeal to the ignorant. The idea that there is debate about global warming is propagated entirely in the popular media.

>>1718877
HAHAHAHA citation needed. I hope you are trolling, the USGS has made no such statement. obviously you need a lesson in vulcanology.

>>1718887
Not him, but http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

Have fun.

>>1718882
>implying straight men have genes that turn them gay in prison.

They gay gene must be the most fabulous one of all.

>>1718882
>implying there is no free will and that every thing you ever do or say or happens is genetic

learn2genetics

>>1718877

No. Just, no.

The earth's climate is unpredictable. There are 14 major variables. 2 are hardly predictable to begin with. The accurately predict the third, you need a supercomputer that's quite literally almost the size of the earth.

>>1718885
>http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
>http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2007.ems

>Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
hahahaha, oh wow
global warming deniers are truly retarded

>>1718887
>http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
>http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2007.ems

>>1718907
water vapor has barely any additional greenhouse effect, because it's concentration in the atmosphere is always constant (rain, probably heard of it).
also humans (and only humans) increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 36%, since preindustrial times

>>1718909
Whereas human sources pump out roughly 8000+ tons.

>>1718892
>>1718892
once again ROFLMAO i followed your links and not a single study was done, just them speculating with complete estimates and in no way do they account for all volcanos on the planet, PSUEDO SCIENCE FTW, if you follow the links all the way it dead ends with NO REAL DATA WHATSOEVER, keep propagating false data and information with no basis.

>>1718919

CO2 doesn't cause warming.

>>1718921
so, your completely baseless claims, without any evidence whatsoever is somehow true, because the other side has only done an educated guess
gg, man, you totally won

>>1718924
HURP DURP
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

>>1718909
>>1718915
hahahah so cute, heres the application to submit the "data" that you guys claim is so true
http://daac.ornl.gov/PI/bestprac.html
pe prepared to laugh hysterically

>>1718935
tl;dr
also, why don't you show us the evidence for your claim that
>a single volcano dumps more Co2 than all of humanity EVER
since you are so picky, the evidence backing that must be huge and undeniable, otherwise this would prove that you just selectively believe what you ant to believe

is global warming denial part of the god bothering conspiracy to accelerate the end of the world? Like when the US right actually encourages Israel to bomb the shit out of all their neighbours because of some vague references in revelations?

>>1718943

>otherwise this would prove that you just selectively believe what you ant to believe

My face at the fact that you're equally guilty of it.

>>1718945
Considering the religious elements within the conservative sector of many political parties in the world, and their tendancy towards scientific denial, one can only begin to think so...

>>1718945

>>1718952

So the other side is all homogeneous and irrational, but you're the one that doesn't categorically dismiss everything?

>>1718951
>My face at the fact that you're equally guilty of it.
actually not
you are just a guy on the internet, saying something with any backing evidence
the other side has a study done by volcanologist.

it's obvious how is more probable to be right
also, your claim is simply countered by common sense.
the CO2 content of earth increase by 36% since per-industrial times.
Through the concentration of the different isotopes of carbon we can positively proof, that the vats majority of that increase is from coal, gas and oil.
therefore if "a single volcano dumps more CO2 than all of humanity EVER" would be right, this would necessarily mean that the CO2 levels would have to skyrocket.
therefore, you are wrong

>>1718967

That was my first post in this thread. I'm not the droid you're looking for.

Also, imply correlation means causation. Lrn2logic.

i think this is one of the best descriptions about the 'controversy of evolution' while i dont have a strong opinion on the discussion taken within the video, I see close parallels between the kinds of education presented in the soviet system and the kind of reactions we see to various kinds of ideologies and methods for knowing and understanding whats around us.

>>1718945
Any global warming thread always attracts trolls and I suspect that there is a 50center poster or two who lurk for such threads. Critical thinkers should see it for what it is. Conspiracy nuts definitely love global warming because it gives them a chance to rant at scientists; they are often joined by the christian fundamentalists who like nothing more than slagging of and trying to discredit science.

it's the only explanation i can see for why the go]lobal warming deniers are mostly allied with the religious right - it's either that the two are both the natural habitats of the moronically ignorant, or there's some sort of religious hating of planet earth possibly linked to the irrational insistence that jesus will save them.

>>1718990
>Conspiracy nuts

>Doesn't know what a conspiracy is.

>>1719004

Socialist Atheist here. Global Warming is not anthropomorphic. It is a religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU

>>1718987
forgot the fucking link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS8LA-5fmrs

>>1718985
>imply correlation means causation
so, is the most steepest rise of CO2 in the history of this planet, the burning of massive coal deposits by humans, causing the rise, an anomalous warming, positive evidence that CO2 is linked to global temperatures from the past, a working and accepted theory of the link, working models of global climate that predict warming, and a consensus of almost all experts on the field not enough to suggest causation?
if not, tell me what is

Man Made Global Warming is actually a lot like Intelligent Design. It makes observations, then creates a Hypothesis. Experiments are skipped, and the hypothesis is simply turned into a conclusion.

Why the fuck does it matter if global warming is anthropogenic? There are any number of good reasons to reduce reliance on nonrenewable, nondomestic power anyways. And fuck the idea that "it's a natural cycle of the earth". Human civilization has lived outside the natural world for thousands upon thousands of years. Our concern is maintaining an Earth with optimal conditions for human life, and to let the planet's conditions deteriorate outside of ideally survivable conditions is existentially irresponsible.

>>1719017
>Global Warming is not anthropomorphic.
I agree, it does not have any human-like qualities at all. It doesn't talk to me or ride the bus to work or anything.

>Global Warming is not anthropomorphic
Thanks for reinforcing my stereotype of the illiterate global warming denier

>>1719022
>the burning of massive coal deposits by humans, causing the rise,

It isn't

>an anomalous warming,

Not anomalous in any way. Part of the natural cycle of ice ages.

>positive evidence that CO2 is linked to global temperatures from the past

Links, no signs of causation. If anything CO2 comes after the warming.

>working models of global climate that predict warming

Da fuck? There are no such models that can accurately predict this.

>and a consensus of almost all experts on the field

No there isn't. Even if it was, majority means nothing.

0/10.

>>1719048
>majority means nothing
A majority opinion means nothing in Dumbfuckistan where 95% of voters are unqualified to hold an opinion about anything more complicated than the alphabet.

A majority opinion means something when the majority in question is highly educated and has several years of research experience.

>It isn't
got news for you
there is pretty much definite proof that all the additional Carbon in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases
-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

>Not anomalous in any way. Part of the natural cycle of ice ages.
we are at a peak in the cycle. earth should cool, not warm

>Links, no signs of causation. If anything CO2 comes after the warming.
yeah, that's part of the theory. Environmental change slightly changes earth temperature, causing CO2 release from the oceans, warming earth, releasing more CO2, warming more, etc,etc

>Da fuck? There are no such models that can accurately predict this.
tehre are a lot of working computer climate simulations, you can question their accuracy, but you can't claim they don't exist

>No there isn't
97% is a consensus, you can't argue that away

>>1719059
>A majority opinion means something when the majority in question is highly educated and has several years of research experience.
>A majority opinion
>OPINION
1 fact is better than all the opinions in the world

>>1719048
>burning coal isn't contributing to the rise in co2
Cx + O2 --> H2O +CO2
or
coal + oxygen --> water + carbon dioxide
or
coal + fire (oxidization) --> water + carbon dioxide

HERP you dun goofed

>>1718686

>Homosexuality occurs in animals

It doesn't. Animals can't even be homosexuals. There is no such thing. Animals don't hump each other because of instinct and nothing else. There is not such thing as emotional love when animals hump each other. If they don't find a parter they hump anything else in sight. Have you never seen a dog humbling a table leg? That I fear is what the OP is talking about. Misinformation spread by the media.

Besides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

/sci/ says-
>correlation =/= causation!
>except with global warming lol

Manmade or natural, it doesn't matter; when Earth gets cooked into Venus 2: Electric Boogaloo, we're all just as fucking dead.

>>1719070
lolol cancer leads to smoking
correlation =/= causation lolol

it's not like we got a theory and model of HOW the causation occurs

>>1719069
Isn't the whole idea of animals not having any emotions speculation? And even if it were based all on instinct, wouldn't homosexuality still apply if an animal instinctively humped males more than females?

>>1719069

I've humped plenty of tables.

your argument is invalid

Corporations make more money from stupid people.
The media, including NPR, is controlled by corporate interests.
The media is working to keep you stupid by denying/confusing science.

>>1719074
Venus is hot due to it's proximity to the sun, and the density of it's sulfuric atmosphere.

>>1719074
It is a thermodynamic impossibility for earth to become like venus without the sun getting at least around 50% hotter (which will eventually happen).

>>1719088
>>1719066
>see argument
>pull out one word
>refute word
>your move

>and the density of it's sulfuric atmosphere
seriously?
has earth an argonic atmosphere?

Personally, i don't give a fuck about global warming, be it anthropogenic or not. What bothers me is idiotic 'green' idiots who call themselves 'progressive' but when it comes to nature are damn right conservatives, all screaming that the end is nigh. Just about everything on the planet will go extinct, massive flood and earthquakes will occur if we don't do something right now! Seriously, you stupid nutjobs, get yourselves institutionalized. It gets warmer? GOOD, I like it! nature adapts itself! Species adapt, move or go extinct. That's evolution, bitch. We are not the earth's guardian, we are just another part of nature. Stop trying to stop nature from what it does naturally!

>>1719093
>>1719088
Oh, that's right, /sci/ is aspies who don't understand hyperbole. My mistake.

>>1719079

>Isn't the whole idea of animals not having any emotions speculation?

I never said that. I said that there are no emotions involved in their reproductive cycle. They don't have sex because they are in love or whatnot. They do it solely based on instinct.

>And even if it were based all on instinct, wouldn't homosexuality still apply if an animal instinctively humped males more than females?

I don't believe that have ever been record. If it where ever recorded it would show that homosexuality indeed is natural.

In any case, it's a rotten argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

>>1719098
>it gets warmer
climateisnotweather.jpg

>>1719096
No, argon is a small trace gas. Venus has enormous clouds of liquid sulfuric acid droplets, which constitute a large percentage of the mass of the atmosphere.

>>1719088
the problem is that Venus "sulfuric" atmosphere (or bettehr, the sulfuric acid clouds) SHOULD reflect the sun much more than clouds on earth. without assuming a massive greenhouse effect, venus is way too hot

>>1719106
facepalm.jpg

>>1719098

>Stop trying to stop nature from what it does naturally!

That might as well be the most anti-science state on /sci/, to date!

Ironic isn't it.

>>1719095
>>1719100
Do you know ANYTHING about astronomy, and Venus in particular?
The difference between the atmosphere of Venus and earth might as well be night and day.

>>1719109
Liquids are, by definition, not part of the atmosphere

>>1719034
The problem is all the stupid taxes and the OH NO WE CAN'T HAVE NUCLEAR POWER IT'S HERESY INSTEAD WE HAVE WATERPOWER AND SHITTY WINDPOWER

>>1719102
>doesn't understand why this illogical argument is made

Fuck, how retarded are you to hide underneath logical fallacies instead of actually understanding the context? The reason this argument is made is not to say that being homosexual is right, but to counter the argument that being gay somehow "goes against nature" and that you never see gay animals.

>>1719119
I was exaggerating to illustrate a point. Responding with "lol venus is different" has nothing to do with my argument.

>>1719129
Well.. if we remove the exaggeration from your statement, there is no longer any statement.

>>1719139
okay, let me spell it out for you then.

>Manmade or natural, it doesn't matter; when Earth gets cooked into Venus 2: Electric Boogaloo, we're all just as fucking dead.

>It doesn't matter if global warming is manmade or not, if it's occurring, it's fucking bad

get it?

>>1719128

> but to counter the argument that being gay somehow "goes against nature" and that you never see gay animals.

It's ironic isn't it that I never claimed such and yet you accuse me of being:

>Fuck, how retarded are you to hide underneath logical fallacies instead of actually understanding the context?

To repeat.

>understanding the context?

And you get hostile one me, even? Unbelievable.

>>1719146
>It doesn't matter if global warming is manmade or not, if it's occurring, it's fucking bad
Thank you for making an intelligible statement. No warming is not necessarily bad. It is less bad than cooling, for example, which is an inevitability of the ice age cycle continues.

nice tits.

>>1719146
It's not bad. It's happened hundreds, hell, thousands of times in the past. The planet heats up, it reaches a point, then it cools into an ice age, then warms again. It's like every other natural cycle. Nature cannot be static. EVERY THING CHANGES

>>1719146
Not the guy you're responding to but:
>It doesn't matter if global warming is manmade or not, if it's occurring, it's fucking bad
It does matter actually, because that it's manmade is a vital component of the argument for 'green' measures that aim to cut carbon emissions etc. If global warming were not man made it would mean that such measures are often a colossal waste of resources.

>>1719162
>>1719158
Sure, it's not bad, except for the part where civilization as we know it relies on current climate patterns.

>>1719148
DO you lack basic reading capabilities? I didn't say that YOU said such things, but you don't understand the fucking context. I'm talking about the CONTEXT here. Not what you said.

REPENT ALL YE BLASPHEMERS! THE END IS NIGH!

>>1719182

This shit is funny. Allow me to intervene. I'm not trying to take sides here but you seem to be the one in the wrong. The other guy expressed how ironic it is that you are talking about the "CONTEXT" yet you don't realize that you are the one who misunderstood the context. As you never claimed what context you were talking about before hand he is in the right. What's ironic is that you are the one accusing him of misunderstanding the "CONTEXT"....

Get it?

>>1719171
It already DOES matter. Farming cycles, clothing cycles...
It's called SEASONS, and SEASONS are far more extreme changes than 3 degrees Celsius. And most season fluctuate wildly. Some winters are much colder and wetter than others. Some summers dryer.
Life adapts. If life wasn't able to adapt to rapid change, life would've never survived this long. Things like climate change help spur on evolution.

>>1719169
Global warming isn't necessarily required to promote policies that lower emissions. There's also acid rain, negative effects on health, the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels, foreign oil monopolies, potential for ecological disasters, etc. Sustainable practices and green policies are important to mitigate global warming, but they don't rely on its existence to have a positive effect.

>>1719207
>Climate is not weather.
>Climate is not weather.
>Climate is not weather.
>Climate is not weather.
>Climate is not weather.
>Climate is not weather.
>Climate is not weather.

>>1719207
failed troll is fail fail

in light of
>>1719215
i retract
>>1719219

>>1719211
>acid rain

>mfw

>>1719215
YES IT IS. Weather is the condition of the atmosphere. A hotter climate=hotter weather. A colder climate=colder weather.
Meteorologists everywhere just pissed themselves laughing at you.

>>1719162
sure

why not simulate Permian conditions and see what happens

it might even bring dinosaurs back! IT WOULD BE AWESOME!!

>>1719219
Can you refute ANYTHING I said with facts, and data?

>>1719226
Where's my reaction image?

>>1719207

Season are periodical not for ever. That's the difference. Nature can adapt to moderate changes for a small length of time. It finds it harder to adapt for a small change though when that change is there forever.

You probably can easily manage to hop across a room using only one leg can't you? But can you manage to do that all the fucking time for the rest of your life?

>>1719227
:facepalm:
It happened in the last 10000 years. We're coming out of an ice age right now. It's getting warm. In time, we'll eventually be in an ice age again. No stopping it.

>>1719234
>he thinks human civilization is well-adapted to survive climate change!
laughinggirls.jpg

>>1719233
Global waring isn't forever.
I moved from Maryland, to Florida. That's a major climate shift. I adapted just fine. So did my pets.
Life adapts.

>>1719226
a bit more complicated

weather is more like climate conditions in a specific area for a point of time

though global warming would result to a generic increase of temperature in most places , local climates at certain places will probably become colder due to oceanic currents' disturbance which is a warming factor to them (UK and Northern Europe for example)

>>1719238
Sure it is. You could live for 10 years in Canada, then move to the Amazon, and you'd be fine. Same with any cattle you bring.

>>1719232

>>1719239
i hope that was sarcastic

>>1719245
He's right, it doesn't last forever. At some point in time the universe will be a cold dark place.

>>1719239
Oh wait, you're serious.

>>1719239
>Global waring isn't forever.

That wasn't the point. The point was the cycle takes far longer than a year.

>I moved from Maryland, to Florida. That's a major climate shift. I adapted just fine. So did my pets.
>Life adapts.

Of shit. 5/10


Also it's true that life adapts. To bad we would probably be wiped off in the process.

>>1719245
Dead serious.
You see, people with actual knowledge about the history of climate, and the ability of life to adapt can site any and all studies, and use real world examples, and climatefags STILL can't let their doomsday scenario go, seemingly because driving a Nissan Leaf will make you look like a REAL MAN.

Humans LEAST OF ALL need to worry about climate.
There's not an environment on earth we haven't lived in. We even manage to live in fucking space, for up to a year.

>>1719243
Well, isn't it a good thing you live in the top 10% of the world's population in terms of wealth and can afford to own an insulated, air conditioned house with access to clean drinking water, a steady food supply, indoor plumbing, a dry bedroom, and vaccines to exotic diseases? Imagine if you were part of the other 90% of humanity who lives in mud huts with no shelter from the elements or disease vectors and no clean water or food! Ouch!!

homosexuality has been reported in many primates other than humans

>>1719258
THAT SOMEHOW AMAZINGLY
continue to survive, and reproduce.
By your fucked up theory, they should all be dead. But they're not. They're flourishing.

>>1719234
no

even if we are in the warming phase of a post-glacial era I do not think accelerating it would allow species and our economy/infrastucture to adapt in time.

also the conditions are brand new AND ANTHROPOGENIC

Even if we were still in the cooling phase and we were counter-balancing the it with, greater concetrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere means that we cannot predict the circles of glaciation with the data gathered about Pleistocene's ice ages

Even if we were totally indifferent about the preservation of species and ecosystems it is just stupid for our economy to jeopardize climate stability and human lives (inb4: don't give a fuck about niggers) when we do not know how we should prepare ourselves for the incoming change or how radical that change would be.

>>1719267
yep, they sure flourished in new orleans during katrina, right?
those 2.5 million people displaced by the floods in pakistan sure are prosperous too, damn I wish I was as well off as they are

>>1719254
>making strawmen that climatologist are presenting end of life scenarios

NO YOU FUCKING FUCKTARD!

Life won't go extinct and most probably humans won't go extinct!

It will just wipe out a great portion of current species, downgrade ecosystems for quite a long time, fuck the economy and cost the lives of millions of third world ppl!

>>1719255
then take your buddies and go to fucking Mars

with all that CO2 you produce you might even terraform it

>>1719303
>cost the lives of millions of third world ppl!

>implying they wouldn't die anyway

>>1719309
PROTIP: The adult human male produces around 1kg of CO2 every day. If you want to start saving the environment, kill yourself

>>1719315
>implying the population of the thirld world is reducing

>>1719303
That's gonna happen from something anyway.
We can't continue with our current way of live, and maintain a population greater than 600-700 million people.
Climate change is easy to adapt to.
>>1719300
DURRHURR DOOM. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
What about OMG New Zealand? Or The Mississippi coast after Katrina? People pull together, and fix shit. Animals like pakis and hoodslime loot, and ruin themselves.

>>1719321
>implying population equals life

>>1719309
Funny how Mars is an icy wasteland.
It's real cold there, with it's 98% CO2 atmosphere, which should make it a raging furnace. It has been warming though, right along with the Earth, and the other planets. Ol' Sol is an amazing thing.

>>1719320
yeah sure... since I eat fossil fuels and not food directly or indirectly produced by photosynthesis

l2 CO2 circle

>>1719336
If you're eatings plants you actually prevent the circle

>>1719334
>>1719334
>It's real cold there, with it's 98% CO2 atmosphere, which should make it a raging furnace

yeah distance from the sun has nothing to do with it

>>1719266
>>1719266
so has teeth-brushing but it don't make it genetic.

I get the impression you're taking it personally, like you think if it's not genetic then it means it's 'bad' but it isn't. It can still be totally natural, there's nothing wrong with it, it's cool bro. You don't need a genetic justification to be ok with it.

Think of it like fapping - is there a gene for fapping? I doubt it, but most people fap. Who cares? Some blokes like fapping with other blokes, and shockhorror some blokes fap each other in stable, loving, life-lasting partnerships and don't fap with anyone but each other. It's cool. But it ain't very genetic.

The other thing is it might be a gene for something mildly unrelated, like emotional sensitivity, which causes the slightest distance in high-testosterone social groups which leads to slight discomfort socially, which then gets picked up on by the proto-alpha adolescent groups who follow their own social programming and highlight it/amplify the discomfort which makes the sensitive male identiufy more with female groups, which leads to a widening of perceived, and then actual, social difference etc etc and it spirals socially...

but it still really doesn't matter. Being gay is a meh thing to worry about. Who cares?

>>1719336
The carbon cycle doesn't work with livestock, because the ratio of animals to plants is higher due to the miracles of vitamins added to feed, and hormones given to make more meat on the hoof. Bigger, gassier cows eating less and less grain, which means lees plants to livestock.

>>1719347
.....

>>1719348
>distance to sun doesn't affect Venus
>lol it affects Mars tho
Would you just give up? Please.?
Climate science has so many holes in it it's a sinking ship. That's why physics and chemistry stay their distance.

>>1719355
agreed but it's all pretty much within the original ammounts of carbon circulating in the ecosystem as very small (insignificant) percentage of this organic matter is introduced by non-photosynthetic sources

and inb4: YES I KNOW FUCKING FOSSIL FUEL USED TO BE IN THE ECOSYSTEM TOO but it represents hundreds of millions of years of accumulation of organic matter that went out of circulation

we would need a fuckload of blue algae to regulate these

CAPTCHA: cormorants, hillend

>>1719367
>distance to sun doesn't affect Venus
>implying I ever said that or claimed that we will become Venus
not everybody is a samefag, you know

>>1719351

I'm going to go ahead and shut down this argument right now. I'm the geneticist that was posting in that thread about eugenics last night, and I feel that I need to inform you that homosexuality is genetic, as is "masculinity," "femininity," and gender roles. It has to do with the ongoing battle between the antagonistic X and Y chromosomes, and the changes they go through to keep an upper hand on each other.

>>1719430
>I'm the geneticist that was posting in that thread about eugenics last night,
inb4: I pruvd nigger do inferior

>>1719445

I did not, in fact the discussion turned to whether intelligence is wholly genetic or not (it isn't), and that's when I jumped in.

>>1719430
it's funny the findings have been kept so quiet, you'd have thought if it was as determined as you say there'd have been a fuck load of studies backing you up.

i assume it's a conspiracy from the feminists?

herp a derp.

>>1719462
heard -liek rumors- that pregnancy conditions during brain-development are liek one of the most contributing factors along with heritage

dat true?

inb4: IMA NOT AN EMBRYOLOGIST GODDAM!

I wasn't implying that homosexuality is genetic i was merely countering the claim that it doesn't occur in nature.

>>1719430
how are X and Y antagonistic?

also why both sides in the homosexuality debate butthurt with ANY evidence presented regardless of what view it supports (choise / genetic diposition etc...)?

>>1719430
why do engineers have predispotion towards homosexuality?

is it explained genetically?

>>1718853

>majority thought the earth was flat

No. The scientific community has actually know the earth is round since the Greeks.

>>1719569
This. The debate was never seriously about the shape of the earth, but rather whether or not the earth is the center of the universe.

>>1719569
I actually thought the earth is kinda pear or egg shaped... :(