Slashdot Mirror
'Great Dying': Rapid Warming Caused Largest Extinction Event Ever, Report Says (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Rapid global warming caused the largest extinction event in the Earth's history, which wiped out the vast majority of marine and terrestrial animals on the planet, scientists have found. The mass extinction, known as the "great dying," occurred around 252m years ago and marked the end of the Permian geologic period. The study of sediments and fossilized creatures show the event was the single greatest calamity ever to befall life on Earth, eclipsing even the extinction of the dinosaurs 65m years ago. Up to 96% of all marine species perished while more than two-thirds of terrestrial species disappeared. The cataclysm was so severe it wiped out most of the planet's trees, insects, plants, lizards and even microbes.
The researchers used paleoceanographic records and built a model to analyze changes in animal metabolism, ocean and climate conditions. When they used the model to mimic conditions at the end of the Permian period, they found it matched the extinction records. According to the study, this suggests that marine animals essentially suffocated as warming waters lacked the oxygen required for survival. The great dying event, which occurred over an uncertain timeframe of possibly hundreds of years, saw Earth's temperatures increase by around 10C (18F). Oceans lost around 80% of their oxygen, with parts of the seafloor becoming completely oxygen-free. Scientists believe this warming was caused by a huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions, potentially caused by volcanic activity.
The researchers used paleoceanographic records and built a model to analyze changes in animal metabolism, ocean and climate conditions. When they used the model to mimic conditions at the end of the Permian period, they found it matched the extinction records. According to the study, this suggests that marine animals essentially suffocated as warming waters lacked the oxygen required for survival. The great dying event, which occurred over an uncertain timeframe of possibly hundreds of years, saw Earth's temperatures increase by around 10C (18F). Oceans lost around 80% of their oxygen, with parts of the seafloor becoming completely oxygen-free. Scientists believe this warming was caused by a huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions, potentially caused by volcanic activity.
Those people 250 million years ago didnâ(TM)t curb their carbon emissions, cut down on driving their cars, or do anything to curb global warming and look what it got them!
You can model anything to match your expectations
Mass extinctions often occur at such changeovers. Be extra careful around these times, and check your insurance is valid.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Burning fossil fuel. And eventually killing the ecosystem and itself. Not entirely unlikely. Scientist have been toying with this thought. Ours really isn't that old and we're screwing up the planet already, big time.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It would be great if we could cause rapid warming in these two states.
that it really doesn't matter what humans do, or don't do, , because when it's time for mass extinction, it's time for mass extinction? Because 252m years ago, there were no people around to cause this.
I guess there should be some hue and cry about escaping Earth, and creating other places as biological refuges, but I don't know if we actually deserve it.
Yep, all them models of quantum mechanics we use to build computer chips? Complete bollocks. Those models we use to build bridges and skyscrapers to figure out the loads and stress, utter garbage since they are always falling down...hmmmm...not yet, you say? Given enough time, they will and show your model theory is correct. You should tell the scientists about this, I'm sure they'd listen to you.
It's true and almost inevitable that an alternate hypothesis can match the evidence.
I try to think of examples of such alternative hypotheses and see if there is any link to a primary hypothesis.
For example, if you have a small oil leak, it will turn into a large one and your car breaks down. Is the little oil leak responsible? Maybe. Is it merely a path for bad luck?
What is a baby hears a loud noise and instinctively backs into the road and gets hit by a car. Is the cause noises, fear of loud noises or cars?
What about dilution. In homeopathey they think that superdiluting elements makes them somehow stronger. No real evidence for this, but consider that you could have a state change in the atmosphere if a warming element moved from one level of dilution in the atmosphere to some other level, even with the standard measurement, say ppb, having changed only a little. What additional side effects could that state change bring?
got yourself redeemed & still feeling low on the polls? never a better time to try on a new or revised digital persona? slight (overlay) revisions in your appearance & motives could lead to contact with some genuinely uncreepy folks? like it in the swamp? work (selflating) your way up to complimentary seating on the great hereafter cruise, along with the crown royals, some virgins, slaves, gargoyles, monkeys & you.. sign up now.. why wait?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I used to have a policy to go to a good restaurant for agood steak and bottle of red every time a spike in alarmist reports hit. Now Ihad to change that as I have neither time nor money and it became detrimental to my health to go there every so often. But this report deserves it. This much dying predicted means I can order a second bottle or invite a hooker too.
I remember reading that the Great Dying was triggered by methane-producing bacteria. The theory said that their methane-producing metabolic cycle was a new development. But the mentioned lack of oxygen in the oceans would give a big rise to such bacteria anyway.
Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas.
So rapid warming has happened before?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Ironically, the Green House effect is a purely quantum mechanical one. We can calculate the absorption spectrum of small molecules down to 10 digits, including those of carbon dioxide, water and methane.
I just looked outside the window and saw two birds. So much for the "extinction".
I am pretty sure there are some very poor grant giving agencies that go and look directly for grateful grantees and are very successful
If the dinosaurs had all bought $60,000+ Tesla's this could have been avoided.
If the anthropocene extinction is created by warming, why did it start before the warming did!?
Venus situation is uncertain, but higher. It got bet after millions of years. If you’re basing your decisions off of whether they’ll turn earth in Venus, it seems a little... I don’t know...
You can do lots of experiments with quantum mechanics. No matter what you do with AGW models, you will never have N>1.
The entire field is inherently a waste of time and resources.
Right? We used to think the sun was a god, until we learned better. Now we know there is no sun.
I live in Genoa, you insensitive clod!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Except the alternative hypothesis does not match the evidence. The evidence is that there was a mass extinction, followed by a global increase in temperature that was the result of the same events that killed everything. That's the accepted evidence, and that science has been settled for 25 years or more.
no return Venus-like
No one ever claimed "Venus like" except idiots like you.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes, I am going to keep posting this until you knot-heads get it.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We must not allow the use of nuclear energy, even to avert potential catastrophe. Only sources under the “renewable” umbrella should be permitted to assist fossil fuels in gently decarbonizing. Nuclear goes too far, threatening to replace fossil fuels rapidly and entirely.
It's even worse than that. We're now producing lots of renewable electricity (wind/sun), but run the coal plants on "standby", because wind and sun aren't always available. Standby means, not feeding the grid, but heating something to get rid of the excessive power. What's being heated is water, until it vaporizes.
Here (Germany) about 1/4th of total electrical power production is used to vaporize water.
Now 1kg of coal produces 11.something MJ. Water takes 2.something MJ/kg to vaporize. So for every 1kg coal we burn, we vaporize 4 l of water. Our "climate friendly" energy production is in fact worse than doing nothing.
The solution would be storage.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Carbon dioxide just sits in the atmosphere, lets the sunlight pass, but absorbs the thermal radiation coming up from the Earth's surface, heats up in the process and causes raising temperatures.
MCCOY: Captain, I see on your report Flavius was killed. I am sorry. I liked that huge sun worshiper.
SPOCK: I wish we could have examined that belief of his more closely. It seems illogical for a sun worshiper to develop a philosophy of total brotherhood. Sun worship is usually a primitive superstition religion.
UHURA: I'm afraid you have it all wrong, Mister Spock, all of you. I've been monitoring some of their old-style radio waves, the empire spokesman trying to ridicule their religion. But he couldn't. Don't you understand? It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God.
KIRK: Caesar and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading only now.
MCCOY: A philosophy of total love and total brotherhood.
SPOCK: It will replace their imperial Rome, but it will happen in their twentieth century.
KIRK: Wouldn't it be something to watch, to be a part of? To see it happen all over again? Mister Chekov, take us out of orbit. Ahead warp factor one.
CHEKOV: Aye, sir.
However, you should thank them; that irrelevant little gaff is the only flaw you can exploit.
Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality, observed sea level is tracking at the upper range of the model projections.
Those stupid models are understating the problem! Totally worth ignoring!
Now, I'm going to buy my 2018 leftover 500 cubic INCH (No unAmerican "liter" bullshit) V8 Pick-up truck and drive my all American Beef fed fat ass around! Global Warming is a hoax by the Chinese who want us to all be converted to Tofu eating Vegan Liberal fags who drive EVs to be charged by - get this - Chinese made solar panels!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Down voting the above to -1 is classic lalala-I-can-not-hear-you childishness.
The above, who is not me, made a good point, intelligently, insulted no one, got down voted by stupid children for telling the truth.
Thank god for the internet where we empower stupid children to avoid truths that do not fit with their feelings.
Rationalwiki, as reliable as Conservapedia, Wikipedia, and the belief communism really, really, really, really will work this time!
Om, nomnomnom...
there's not problem. Folks know there's a problem, but the average person is living paycheck to paycheck (60-80% of them, depending on if you define "paycheck to paycheck" as "very little in the bank" or "not a dime in the bank").
I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: Climate change is years from now, rent's due at the end of the month. If you want folks to care about climate change you have to solve their short term economic problems. That means taxes. If you're making good money (figure $300k/yr+) your taxes are going up to fund public works projects. Also we're gonna have to pull back on all those wars and, well, let's not mince words, your stock portfolio profits handsomely from the Military Industrial Complex...
Still, unless we do something about working class Americans then they're gonna keep voting climate change deniers in office because anything we can do about Climate change is likely to cost them money, and they're barely making it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If I hadn't already used all my mod points, I *would* commence downvoting you. If you don't have a model to justify your conclusions, then you're guessing essentially at random. If you don't know or understand your model, you don't have much reason to trust it.
That said, a model is no guarantee of the correct answer. It's just that not having a model *is* almost a guarantee of the wrong answer.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Neither side is accurate. Oil companies prefer to keep the profits and hedge their bets by investing in alternative energy. The left side is just ridiculous I don't need to explain what is wrong with it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Disagree. Every physical process that doesn't involve gravitation can, in principle, be accurately modeled by a quantum theory based model to any desired degree of precision. We're still looking for exceptions.
The problem with something like the greenhouse effect is that it's so large that no feasible quantum theory based model exists. We can't even accurately model the atoms in a liter of air, because the equations get too hairy.
So it's perfectly reasonable to say that the Greenhouse Effect is purely quantum, it's just unreasonable to try to model it that way. A good quantum model would be completely accurate (AFAIKT), but would be so computationally intractable as to be unusable. (Any claim that you've seen WRT a quantum model of the Greenhouse Effect has either lied or made so many simplifying assumptions that you can't trust it.)
That said, particular interactions that go into the Greenhouse Effect can be thoroughly and precisely modeled, and used as input into a classical model. And I'm sure that's what is being referred to.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
> the belief communism really, really, really, really will work this time!
Oh but it does. It prevents Western governments and corporations from stripping away absolutely all the labor rights acquired in the nineteen century, and that allowed a middle class to grow; which is the way that communism has always worked.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
tl;dr : modeling climate, based on quantum mechanical systems, is like trying to run an emulator of IBMs Summit supercomputing system on a Galaxy S5. Your FPS is gonna suck.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Whenever I see this, I know the conclusions are bollocks.
The only way to know something which is demonstrably false is to be an idiot.
The original IPCC report had climate models in it. The climate agreed with the future predictions to within the error bars, demonstrating the models were not in fact bollocks.
Now, please start my inevitable downvoting.
Yes if you post something that stupid it will get downmodded.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yes, I am going to keep posting this until you knot-heads get it.
Kind of interesting that those obscene profits come from the people who claim to hate them. Millenials are the most well-travelled generation in history. They only care about climate change when it’s time to talk.
Do as we say, not as we do, amirite?
You want we should chain them down instead so they can’t keep pouring billions of dollars into oil company profits? What do you do, by the way? Just drive to work and the grocery store, or do you forget about the climate when it’s convenient for you to do so as well?
Oil company profits don’t come from the hand of Satan. The majority comes from affluent progressives, who take more flights per year, and fly more miles, than so-called ‘conservatives’.
If you think we should start jailing them for pouring billions into oil company coffers, say as much.
Don't read the paper. If you did you would see that the model results are correlated with empirical evidence (extinction of species via disappearance from the fossil record). In a way that's pretty clever, and since the fossil evidence comes from a different research group, probably correct. Then you would have to realize that your comment is inane.
This should finally disprove all IPCC claims forever. Great news.
See my comment above. You obviously haven't read the paper. You can quibble with the quality of experimental confirmation, but kindly do so from a position of actual understanding.
If you are right about the problem you are also correct about the solution.
Nuclear power. Safe, cheap, widely available tenth generation nuclear power plants.
Which we don't have because of the feels of millions of environmentalists and their useful idiots over the past half-century or more.
So that is why I am unconcerned about global warming. The same people who whine incessantly about it have blocked the only realistic solution for so long that the problem is now inevitable.
You know that tiny phrase "in principle" you used? It means "we can't now or in any foreseeable future", thus rendering any "we could accurately" statement incorrect.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Are you an anti-vaxxer, too? Believe the Moon landings were faked? Think the Earth is flat? That the Earth is the center of the Universe and everything else revolves around it? A Creationist, perhaps? Science and scientists are evil, sent by Satan to mislead us? Fossils found contradicting the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old are all fakes, planted by Satan for the evil Satanic scientists to fool the Faithful, lead them astray from God? Well? Are you That Guy? Human-caused climate-change deniers sure sound like Those People to me. For fuck's sake GET A CLUE.
The left side is just ridiculous I don't need to explain what is wrong with it.
Putting political bullshit like 'them libtards' ahead of what is best for our ENTIRE SPECIES and the FUTURE OF THE EARTH does not make you look very intelligent, quite the opposite, it makes you look like a complete IDIOT. Fix your shit, get your priorities straight.
Is humanity now trying to beat this record event?
That's your opinion, just like the moderation(that cost 1 whole point so stop the hissy fit.)
You can't force people to moderate things you agree with only in positive ways. That's poisoning the well.
I think you haven't read the paper and sound frankly pretty silly arguing about it. I think you get your daily dose of confirmation bias and confuse it with actual knowledge.
The problem with reports like this is that it feeds the denier story. They say, "see, the earth has warmed and cooled in the past without man, there's no proof man is the current culprit". So PhuckIt, drill more, dig more coal, and keep the money rolling into the rich!
For linking to the pic, I'd mod you up. For the rest of it? I dunno. Why? Read:
Know what 99.999999% of every human on the planet prioritizes above all else? Day to day survival, and making their lives work, taking care of their families, and so on. They don't have TIME or ENERGY to think about things this big. So blaming them for propping up oil companies is bullshit so far as I'm concerned. There's supposed to be bigger brains with a more farsighted vision of things taking care of the long-term plans, with a sense of ethics and morality to serve the interests of all, so that the common person can take care of their own day to day business and survival. Clearly we do not have that; we have out-of-control capitalism, The Few (i.e. The Rich) only concerned really with This Quarters' Profits, and whether the Earth is habitable 100 years from now or now? That's someone else's problem so far as they're concerned, they'll be DEAD by then so why should they care so long as they have The Good Life NOW. Then there's the extreme religious types, who think the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that it's All Going To End Soon anyway, that the Apocalypse is coming, nothing can stop it, so why should they bother? Jesus is going to come take The Faithful home to Heaven anyway, why should they bother? The worst of those, they think hurrying along the demise of the Earth and all life on it, will make Jesus come back sooner, so they can go to Heaver with him sooner. This, of course, is not only a perversion of their own beliefs, it's utter and complete NONSENSE.
We have to rein in out-of-control corporations, we have to rein in The Rich, somehow, and prevent them all from fucking over the Earth and all living things on it, before it's too late -- and it may already BE too late. The one-two-ten-few thousand banding together won't do it. Governments have to be sent a clear unmistakable message that this will no longer be tolerated and make THEM rein in The Few who would sell our future, the future of the Earth, for a few bucks in profit TODAY. The sad fact is: good bloody luck getting anyone to organize anything. There may need to be a die-back of all living things, 99% of all humans dying, before any of it can be made to stop. Human civilization may just not be worthy to be the custodian of the Earth.
Disagree. Every physical process that doesn't involve gravitation can, in principle, be accurately modeled by a quantum theory based model to any desired degree of precision.
Relevant.
Hit me up with that "quantum theory based model" of .NET development. Should be a fun read.
"which occurred over an uncertain timeframe of possibly hundreds of years"
We are looking back some 250 Million years, and they have the precision of the warming period in hundreds of years? I think that should read "hunders of thousand years".
So you now educate people by misleading them? Or is anyone going to argue that leaving the TWO HUNDRED MILLION YEARS AGO from the title is not doing the same clickbaity crap that media does as they try to apeal to their circlejerking base?
To be fair the moderation points isn't there for "I disagree" but rather for "this comment is off-topic or here to only cause trouble" which shouldn't be taken as the same. That doesn't change that the modern way to moderate content is to focus on removing what you don't agree with. Sadly. But it may be too late to try to change that now. If you stop it just mean the other side wins.
The "bigger brains" are being interfered with by companies and governmental entities which put profits ahead of all else. In the process, they're trying to stain the reputation of and discredit the "bigger brains". The average American is stupid and uneducated, and combined with the malicious who want to watch everything burn, it's having a severe backlash against the entities which try to maintain the planet.
It's always been a fight against the rich who want more money at any cost. Now we have a president who is reversing protections and sending nasty Twitters... and the public is eating it up and swallowing it. If ever there were a time when our future -- both as a country and as a species -- was in danger, this is it.
I deal with executives at my company daily who have a huge "don't tread on me" display hanging in the entrance to the executive suite, and an exec with "molon labe" tattoed on his forearms with camo and guns painted all over his truck... who think that any tax is evil and will cut corners in any way possible, in ways that affect the employees daily. I have to keep quiet so I'm not a focus of their aggressive lunatic tendencies. These changes all came about after Trump was elected. It's been very saddening to see a company I've spent so much effort and time supporting take such an awful turn.
Except that doesn't explain what "Overrated" and "Underrated" are for. These require an explicit judgement of the content even when it is on-topic.
It's not as though this problem is new, either. It was broken when it was first implemented, as are all similar reader voting schemes for the same reasons. No one should expect popularity contests to produce good results.
Society is hyper-partisan. You expect moderation to be corrupted by that, not be a solution for it.
It used to be that "software devs" went to school. Not so much anymore.
You're a denialist, you should be brutally murdered.
"...but don't insult my intelligence..."
nothing to insult.
"If the models were as accurate as you suggest, there wouldn't be any divergence between them and actual reality,"
The claim you are referring to is explicitly clear that no such divergence exists.
"as there is in every climate model"
He didn't make a claim about climate model, he made a claim about absorption spectrum of small molecules. See...no intelligence to insult.
The problem here is that you don't know anything and it's made worse by your arrogance. Curiously, these often go together. You're a high-strutting Dunning-Kruger poster child.
Again, wrong. Try catching up. Everything said in that post is well presented and uncontroversial.
Again, a poster child of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
How can they "accumulate thousands of errors" when they don't make measurements? I think these thousands of errors you refer to are in your own feeble mind.
Perhaps you should choose a "physics lecturer" that isn't a homeless guy sharing your bottle of Mad Dog. Don't pretend you've any such education, you utterly fail to demonstrate it.
You just became the poster-boy for everything I was talking about, yes. We're a chronically short-sighted species of cavemen who are rushing headlong to their own extinction, and who knows if there'll even be another species to take our place in 1,000,000 years? Maybe the dolphins? Maybe racoons? Who knows.
1. It does include margins of error
2. The predictions made in prior reports have actually come true to within the margin of error
3. "Probably doesn't" is something only an idiot who has never read something would say. So you're admitting you don't know what something is saying, but are saying it's wrong anyway. Also you've done no research whatsoever to find out if it is wrong, even by asking people who'd know.
It's hard to quantify the level of idiocy necessary to write the two comments you've written, but if we build a model to determine your lack of intelligence based upon those comments, I can pretty much guess that the "error bars" are going to be fairly narrow.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Disagree. Every physical process that doesn't involve gravitation can, in principle, be accurately modeled by a quantum theory based model to any desired degree of precision.
There's no way to accurately model planetary atmospheres without involving gravity, so the poster who said "The Greenhouse Effect is no more "purely" quantum mechanical than a cow is "purely" spherical." is correct, even if he didn't know why.
Also, the poster who said "Ironically, the Green House effect is a purely quantum mechanical one." is also mistaken because a correct model of the so-called Green House effect depends upon interactions between the layers of the atmosphere. And those layers are due to gravity, among other things.
How is it that 250 million years ago, volcanic activity causes global warming, yet in the last couple thousand years volcanic activity is closely tied to global cooling events?
People idiotically using 'm' where they clearly should use 'M'.
m = x0.001
M = x1000
252m years ago == 0.252 years, about three months ago.
Note that even if Slashdot invented a perfect moderation system, a good percentage of the people would leave rather than see their misconceptions challenged.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yeah, I know that out side of tiny "proof of principle" models it can't be done. But I was objecting to a particular statement. The assertion that models weren't useful. Without a model your decisions would be worse than throwing darts at a dartboard after being blindfolded, and spun around a few times...and the dart board moved randomly. (Did you notice that I'm building a model?)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Well, yes. I wasn't defending that the greenhouse effect could be modeled with a quantum model. But my caveat was because the various gravitational extensions proposed for quantum theory haven't been validated. They do exist, and, as far as we can measure, they are correct. (We just can't measure very much. And they're clearly wrong in extreme cases where we can compare them with relativity in areas where relativity has been validated. I'm not sure what decimal the inconsistency would show up in, though, as they aren't *that* bad. Just don't try to do the math.)
P.S.: If some real expert wants to chime in, that's fine with me. I'm merely an interested amateur, and it's been multiple decades since I looked a tensor in the face.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
that would be a short term solution that would eventually bite you in the ass. The goal is to give them stable lives with a modicum of comfort and family life.
What I'm advocating has already happened in large parts of Europe and the UK (though the UK is regressing and Europe is trying to).
Finally, Money corrupting the system is just a symptom. If folks felt more secure then all the money in the world would prevent them from addressing climate change.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
are just regular fires. Disasters happen. Folks are used to that.
Doing something on climate change would only benefit their checks if it lead to new jobs for the folks who'll be put out of work. A lot of climate change proponents are just asking people to cut back. They want to fix the climate problems for their own reasons, but they don't want to pay for all that infrastructure spending. That kind of infrastructure needs government backing to make happen. And that means taxes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Mostly correct. CO2 does not stay around forever, there's natural feedbacks, plants are obvious, there's also the cycle where more CO2 causes warming which causes more evaporation and more rain, which leads to more weathering of silicates which bind CO2 into rock. In just a few thousand years, if we stopped adding CO2, it would drop back down to about 300ppm.
This cycle is also a climate driver on geological time scales. Lots of new mountains capture more rain and have lots of silicates to get weathered, CO2 drops. Large continents with no rain in the interiour, less weathering and CO2 goes up.
Water vapor is also important as a green house gas, without it, the Earth would be something like -25C average and an iceball.
I also wonder what will happen if we really start launching rockets, with water vapor exhaust in the high altitudes where currently there is no water vapor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It's a pity there isn't a "-1: No they wouldn't, that's ridiculous!" mod.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
They always say sequels never live up to the original. The Great Dying 2: This Time it's Personal! :)
Actually a high percentage of anti-vaxxers are very scientifically literate. Remember, vaccines are pushed by for-profit organizations that tell us things like smoking is healthy and eating fat is bad for you. Remember, it was a scientist that came up with that fat thing, and it was fraudulent science to boot.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh but it does. It prevents Western governments and corporations from stripping away absolutely all the labor rights acquired in the nineteen century, and that allowed a middle class to grow; which is the way that communism has always worked.
Well that sure explains why all of those leftwing groups that promote it, are going out of their way to bring everyone down to the same level of misery.
Om, nomnomnom...