| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8 |
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
You keep hearing that population is growing exponentially promoted by Ehrlich and Malthus among others yet it's clear that all around the world births
have decreased greatly in all developing countries, and the USA's constant wars are killing people as well in the many millions and depleted uranium
from bombs is continuing to reduce birth rate as well as life expectancy, japan, usa, russia, china, europe, latin america all are experiencing
reduced birth rate due to more successful modern economies based on energy availability.
The true numbers of population are not available though I challenge you to point to a developing country with an increasing birth rate and population,
therefore one can conclude that if countries are allowed to use energy and resources to have power to light and cook and use machinery to create a 1st
world middle class lifestyle, population doesn't explode and catastrophe doesn't occur as predicted.
Even if population was increasing there isn't an arbitrary number that is the maximum the earth can support, since people and science evolve to work
things out. In the early 1900's there were piles of manure in each city, miles high, it was the most serious problem facing humanity. Then when oil
was found to be a useful energy source that could run motors the problem of pollution caused by horse manure was solved. So oil wasn't the so called
ecological and economic disaster it is purported to be, in fact oil was an ecological and economic savior to humanity to reduce catastrophic
pollution.
So, you can see there are a number of fallacies that are repeated that are pure conjecture. Oil has produced a more ecological earth and helped to
reduce the need for high birthrates and has helped to create a balance and reduce pollution.
One can compare the vista in developed cities in the USA today to 20-30 years when you could see an outline of smog present at all time and today you
do not due to improved methods of combustion in cars, trucks and coal factories.
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]
|
|
|
willardguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6451
Registered: 9-19-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Are there any parts of the world where population is not growing?
Yes. Roughly speaking, populations are holding stable in Japan and Western Europe. Populations are decreasing somewhat in Russia and some Eastern
European countries. Growth in several southern African countries has slowed due to higher death rates because of AIDS. But population is growing
either rapidly or very rapidly in every other part of the world right now, including India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Bangladesh, Uganda, the United States of America, Australia, Ethiopia and China. In other words, population has stabilized where about 1.2 billion
people live and is still increasing very rapidly where 4 billion people live -- those who can least afford it. Result: the annual net gain of over 70
million people!
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
^^^i agree with your views^^^
|
|
|
willardguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6451
Registered: 9-19-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
"It doesnt matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true"
Paul Watson
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19918
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
SAVE THE WHALES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19918
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
You keep hearing that population is growing exponentially promoted by Erlich and Malthus among others yet it's clear that all around the world births
have decreased greatly in all developing countries, and the USA's constant wars are killing people as well in the many millions and depleted uranium
from bombs is continuing to reduce birth rate as well as life expectancy, japan, usa, russia, china, europe, latin america all are experiencing
reduced birth rate due to more successful modern economies based on energy availability.
The true numbers of population are not available though I challenge you to point to a developing country with an increasing birth rate and population,
therefore one can conclude that if countries are allowed to use energy and resources to have power to light and cook and use machinery to create a 1st
word middle class lifestyle, population doesn't explode and catastrophe doesn't occur as predicted.
Even if population was increasing there isn't an arbitrary number that is the maximum the earth can support, since people and science evolve to work
things out. In the early 1900's there were piles of manure in each city, miles high, it was the most serious problem facing humanity. Then when oil
was found to be a useful energy source that could run motors the problem of pollution caused by horse manure was solved. So oil wasn't the so called
economic disaster it is purported to be, in fact oil was an ecological and economic savior to humanity to reduce catastrophic pollution.
So, you can see there are a number of fallacies that are repeated that are pure conjecture. Oil has produced a more ecological earth and helped to
reduce the need for high birthrates and has helped to create a balance and reduce pollution.
One can compare the vista in developed cities in the USA today to 20-30 years when you could see an outline of smog present at all time and today you
do not due to improved methods of combustion in cars, trucks and coal factories.
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid] |
newkid:
your argument is ridiculous. if everybody consumed energy at same rate as gringos, the rate of global warming would be 2 degrees per week!!!!!!!!!
or something close to that rate 
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
The things I wrote about in regards to Erlich are basic fundamentals of population bilogy taught in undergraduate classes in most zoolog departments.
Look up Gaussian experiments of the 30's. r and K selection. Carrying capacity of environments.
In fact, Ehrlich was not wrong. Mankind did make the adjustments it had to make. Most higher evolved animals do self regulate. That also has been
studied in nature. The Canadians at university of british columbia did it with voles.
Coming from you that is funny. You are the king of junk science on this board. A pseudoscientist that mixes his own thoughts with cherry picked
articles and comes out with fantastic theories that are worded to sound scholastically. |
There you have it, fantastic! your criticism of me is that I use science combined with thought to make my point and you fail to rebut even one point
while every point you offer is demonstrably false t and your only rebuttal is to refer to Paul Ehrlich who has been proven wrong on nearly every prediction to date?
So you haven't a leg to stand on, you have made no point nor refuted any, and you fall back upon Paul Ehrlich as a reference point not so unlike the
institutional catastrophic group-think that has been a common trait of the arguments made by university and political elite to promote global
governance.
You base your empty argument on a series of false points to promote failed policies, exemplified by such boondogles as carbon trading markets,
punishing taxes on energy, bogus threats of malthusian population explosions causing catastrophe and demonizing energy and the middle class as our
most serious problems for society, the same energy and middle class lifestyle that apparently reduces population and solves pollution problems?
So there you have it, irrational illogical scientific talk, SkipJack would prefer to quote Paul Ehrlich who said population was a problem "bigger than Hitler" and used false and exaggerated predictions and fear to promote forced
abortions and forced sterilization among other ideas to reduce the number of humans, presumably because Ehrlich believed he was more suited to be on
the earth than you or your child! All based on false argument and lies to promote harsh methods of control of your life and liberty, two of the so
called inalienable rights of man. This type of malthusian techno-toltalinarianism is as far from science and factual discussion as possible and yet
you have presumably educated adults such as SkipJack and Obama parroting their lies to demand you live in austerity while they ride around in jets on
vacation, the hypocrisy and myopia of so called experts spouting nonsense and false argument are the greatest threat to humanity, not common man,
energy, CO2 or population.
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]
|
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
Whales? Wales? Here I thought this thread was about whales, not "uranium bombs" and temperature records. Wouldn't it be nice if an agreement could be
worked out with Canada to ship tens of millions of acre feet of water south? Enough water to enrich without stripping water for Canada or her natural
resources such as the fisheries. The income could certainly help Canada, the water could turn vast areas of the USA to soybean production (diesel fuel
additive), and protect the USA from an inevitable drought caused by climate change. The arguments about climate change reminds me of an old joke: The
guy tossing buckets of gasoline onto a huge forest fire and quipping "Oh why hell, this can't possibly hurt". I'd sure like to see 80% of our
electrical production derived from renewable resources. I'd like to see an amendment to the US constitution that demands that all traffic control
signals that see more than a hundred automobiles an hour use a computerized signal timing system. Speed lanes like those in Mexico City. Enter US 405
off the 5 and exit only in 3 places, just one on ramp, the 5 at both ends.
Green credits. Plant approved trees and get them for free, subsidized. Tens of thousands of weeping willows along California's levees. Their roots
will prevent levee failures. Plants turn CO2 into O2. Instead of protesting, go plant something even if its in a planter. People that do the least are
the ones yelling loudest about people not doing enough.
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
newkid:
your argument is ridiculous. if everybody consumed energy at same rate as gringos, the rate of global warming would be 2 degrees per week!!!!!!!!!
or something close to that rate |
Pollution is often referred to as a portion of green house gasses or GHG. CO2 makes up less than 3.62% of GHG and human produced C02 makes up only
3.4% of that. So humans are responsible for about .0009 of GHG CO2 that is supposed to be the life threatening monumental threat to humanity requiring that
punishing austerity be promoted worldwide and less developed countries shouldn't be allowed to benefit from 1st world lifestyles, the same middle
class lifestyle that apparently has reduced populations in the USA and the need for high birth rate to combat child death and support for labor
intensive requirements by oppressed people without access to cheap and efficient energy, the same cheap energy that we 1st world people all benefit
from and enjoy?
Meanwhile not only have oil and coal solved the problem of mile high piles of manure polluting cities, modern oi and coal based power plants are
becoming more efficient evidenced by reduced pollution output by the USA and UK measured as a reduction of CO2 output by more than 7% since 2006? USA reduced pollution output occurred without any forcing measures other than
common will and desire.
Again, we see that the threat of catastrophe caused by population and pollution decreases when people are allowed access to cheap energy and are free
of artificial scarcity promoted by hacks such as Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Skipjack and the Goat who clearly haven't demonstrated they have got a
handle on practical science nor facts.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DavidE
Whales? Wales? Here I thought this thread was about whales, not "uranium bombs" and temperature records. Wouldn't it be nice if an agreement could be
worked out with Canada to ship tens of millions of acre feet of water south? Enough water to enrich without stripping water for Canada or her natural
resources such as the fisheries. The income could certainly help Canada, the water could turn vast areas of the USA to soybean production (diesel fuel
additive), and protect the USA from an inevitable drought caused by climate change. The arguments about climate change reminds me of an old joke: The
guy tossing buckets of gasoline onto a huge forest fire and quipping "Oh why hell, this can't possibly hurt". I'd sure like to see 80% of our
electrical production derived from renewable resources. I'd like to see an amendment to the US constitution that demands that all traffic control
signals that see more than a hundred automobiles an hour use a computerized signal timing system. Speed lanes like those in Mexico City. Enter US 405
off the 5 and exit only in 3 places, just one on ramp, the 5 at both ends.
Green credits. Plant approved trees and get them for free, subsidized. Tens of thousands of weeping willows along California's levees. Their roots
will prevent levee failures. Plants turn CO2 into O2. Instead of protesting, go plant something even if its in a planter. People that do the least are
the ones yelling loudest about people not doing enough. |
Here David promotes a simple infrastructure solution to scarcity of water, an aquaduct to send water from the north to the south.
How simple and effective, send resources to where they are needed using modern technology and ability. Now with all the modern technology and massive
strength the USA possesses couldn't the USA invest in simply pipe or aquaduct to send water from the ice caps to the south? Of course we could and it
would radically change the outlook and productivity of the land and the productiveness of the country, so why don't we see infrastructure improvements
like this? And to those selected managers who fail to move forward on improvements to infrastructure how should we respond?
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Water Pipelines. Will the enviro-nuts be opposed to them, all the eco-damage? Probably not. Depends upon how thirsty they are.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8088
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
So you haven't a leg to stand on, you have made no point nor refuted any, and you fall back upon Paul Ehrlich as a reference point not so unlike the
institutional catastrophic group-think that has been a common trait of the arguments made by university and political elite to promote global
governance.
|
This is so you.
Back to conspiracy theories about the academia and 'political elite'. The bogeymen. Nothing is what it seems to be. There are hidden agendas
everywhere and only an astute individual like yourself understands the true facts.
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
So there you have it, irrational illogical scientific talk, SkipJack would prefer to quote Paul Ehrlich who said population was a problem "bigger than Hitler" and used false and exaggerated predictions and fear to promote forced
abortions and forced sterilization among other ideas to reduce the number of humans, presumably because Ehrlich believed he was more suited to be on
the earth than you or your child! All based on false argument and lies to promote harsh methods of control of your life and liberty, two of the so
called inalienable rights of man. This type of malthusian techno-toltalinarianism is as far from science and factual discussion as possible and yet
you have presumably educated adults such as SkipJack and Obama parroting their lies to demand you live in austerity while they ride around in jets on
vacation, the hypocrisy and myopia of so called experts spouting nonsense and false argument are the greatest threat to humanity, not common man,
energy, CO2 or population.
|
WTF are you talking about? I don't jet around the world. I put my pants on one leg at a time same as anyone else.
Ehrlich was no crackpot. Comparing him to Hitler is ludicrous. He was a full fledged professor at Stanford who actually did some great research in
ecology (butterflies). His science publications were regular reading material in grad school.
Why are you providing links to fox news political pages in a discourse on science?
Like I said:
(a) add a little salt (Ehrlich)
(b) add a little pepper (Obama)
(c) mix it with sterilization and abortions
... and you have another gnukid dish. As only you know how to prepare them.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8088
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Gnukid,
Please provide some reference material that human intelligence has gone through ups and downs over time. Please support that statement.
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Much was written about man's abuse of our planet, it's inhabitants, and our certain path to extinction.
Gnukid tried to make the correction but in so doing added his pet conspiracy theories that had little to do with the subject.
Back in the late 60's the Stanford professor Paul Erlich was a late night visitor of late night television who became interested in his book "The
Population Bomb".
This book clearly maps out how our population is growing and all of the known agricultural and potential agricultural centers of our planet. The
potential of our oceans was also evaluated. The global food resources were evaluated. The food requirements of mankind were evaluated. And finally a
graph was presented. A horizontal line for food availability and a diagonal line for our growth. At the interesection of the 2 we were going to start
experiencing global famines.
This was supposed to happen somewhere in the late 70's - early 80's. The 70's - early 80's came and went with none of the predictions being met. Paul
Erlich was no longer a popular speaker.
As any biologist knows no living species continues to grow unabated forever. Ehrlich assumed that the balance would be reached through starvation. But
there are many other ways. We self regulate.
My wife's peruvian family had 14 siblings but none of those sivlings had more than 2 kids. My grandmother belonged to a family of 11 but, again nobody
had more than 3 kids.
The fact is that when a population is growing at a exponential rate without restrictions it will reproduce very differently then when the carring
capacity of the environment is reached.
The reason we're not starving is because we've adapted. And because we can adapt there will be no extinction.
And we will adapt to global warming in some way when the stakes get high enough. |
SkipJack's reply provides an example of the irrational thought programming that is the single most significant plague on humanity. His reply contains
a number of fallacies, theories and conclusion.
SkiJack makes a personal attack on me without making or rebutting a point? This is fallacious argument, ad hominem, and is used by people with no
point to make.
Skipjacks notes about Paul Erlich false predictions don't make a point. Using a negative conclusion as evidence doesn't support a valid argument or
make a point. Saying this didn't happen so therefore x is true doesn't make a point except that x didn't happen. Erlich was wrong, so what?
Furthermore, population isn't growing exponentially, it's unclear that is growing at all as we see in all developing countries population is
decreasing. The overall population is currently stable and many if not most countries are losing population as a product of births per family.
He uses the term global warming as a reference but that as well is theory while it is clear the earth was absolutely warmer previously, as
well with much higher CO2 than today. In fact, the highest global temperature recorded was in 1988, Mann's hockey stick theory of global warming has been proven demonstrably not just wrong but unethical and junk science.
So, SkipJack makes a series of inflamatory and false statements which support absolutely no other conclusion than irrational thought is rampant and
lack of reason is a most serious obstacle toward thoughtful discussion and human evolution.
So what is the cause of the loss of reason among humanity and what can we do to reverse the trend?
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid] |
Gnukid makes the following statement in the above , with a link to source it:
"He uses the term global warming as a reference but that as well is theory while it is clear the earth was absolutely warmer previously, as well with
much higher CO2 than today. In fact, the highest global temperature recorded was in 1988, Mann's hockey stick theory of global warming has been proven
demonstrably not just wrong but unethical and junk science."
Your link to the source that states the highest-ever global temperature was in 1988 is a New York Times article that was published in 1989!
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by Mexitron]
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8088
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
| Quote: | Originally posted by DavidE
Whales? Wales? Here I thought this thread was about whales, not "uranium bombs" and temperature records. Wouldn't it be nice if an agreement could be
worked out with Canada to ship tens of millions of acre feet of water south? Enough water to enrich without stripping water for Canada or her natural
resources such as the fisheries. The income could certainly help Canada, the water could turn vast areas of the USA to soybean production (diesel fuel
additive), and protect the USA from an inevitable drought caused by climate change. The arguments about climate change reminds me of an old joke: The
guy tossing buckets of gasoline onto a huge forest fire and quipping "Oh why hell, this can't possibly hurt". I'd sure like to see 80% of our
electrical production derived from renewable resources. I'd like to see an amendment to the US constitution that demands that all traffic control
signals that see more than a hundred automobiles an hour use a computerized signal timing system. Speed lanes like those in Mexico City. Enter US 405
off the 5 and exit only in 3 places, just one on ramp, the 5 at both ends.
Green credits. Plant approved trees and get them for free, subsidized. Tens of thousands of weeping willows along California's levees. Their roots
will prevent levee failures. Plants turn CO2 into O2. Instead of protesting, go plant something even if its in a planter. People that do the least are
the ones yelling loudest about people not doing enough. |
Here David promotes a simple infrastructure solution to scarcity of water, an aquaduct to send water from the north to the south.
How simple and effective, send resources to where they are needed using modern technology and ability. Now with all the modern technology and massive
strength the USA possesses couldn't the USA invest in simply pipe or aquaduct to send water from the ice caps to the south? Of course we could and it
would radically change the outlook and productivity of the land and the productiveness of the country, so why don't we see infrastructure improvements
like this? And to those selected managers who fail to move forward on improvements to infrastructure how should we respond? |
Unfortunately it's too simple.
California has for years been arguing over the idea of sending water from the northern half to the southern half. To no avail. Because the proposed
aqueduct would suck in salt water from the ocean into the delta killing most endemic species that have evolved to live at a certain salinity. The less
water that flows out of SF bay the further the intrusion of salt water.
Most simple solutions are like that. They have repercussions. In our modern world scientific models predict all changes before the green light is
given. It'snot like the dams that went up on the Columbia River system in the 30's that pretty much wiped out the salmon runs.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Skipjack provides no points, no references, makes fallacious points and ad hominem attacks.
Correction of your hyperbole, it was Paul Ehrlich who made analogies that the threat of population was bigger than than threat of Hitler.
Skipjack successfully makes an argument that exceptional irrationalism is the plague of our time. There is no purpose or benefit in spewing insults
and conflating statements to confuse and misdirect the point at hand: population is not a serious threat to humanity, nor is pollution caused by human
generated green house gasses.
Quite the opposite, in the past, before humans, GHG CO2 was as high as 1500ppm +_ 500ppm and the earth had much more plantlife, today we have about 350-380ppm or less with reduced output by
developed countries annually, so if anything we are at risk of a lack of GHG CO2 if anything to fuel the plant life needed to produce oxygen to
support human life.
As to the evidence that humans were previously more intelligent, you make a good argument yourself that previously people were smarter. Let's avoid
the tendency here to move off topic when one fails to have a point to make, Skipjack.
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid]
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8088
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wow. That's really lame, gnukid.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Mexitron
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Much was written about man's abuse of our planet, it's inhabitants, and our certain path to extinction.
Gnukid tried to make the correction but in so doing added his pet conspiracy theories that had little to do with the subject.
Back in the late 60's the Stanford professor Paul Erlich was a late night visitor of late night television who became interested in his book "The
Population Bomb".
This book clearly maps out how our population is growing and all of the known agricultural and potential agricultural centers of our planet. The
potential of our oceans was also evaluated. The global food resources were evaluated. The food requirements of mankind were evaluated. And finally a
graph was presented. A horizontal line for food availability and a diagonal line for our growth. At the interesection of the 2 we were going to start
experiencing global famines.
This was supposed to happen somewhere in the late 70's - early 80's. The 70's - early 80's came and went with none of the predictions being met. Paul
Erlich was no longer a popular speaker.
As any biologist knows no living species continues to grow unabated forever. Ehrlich assumed that the balance would be reached through starvation. But
there are many other ways. We self regulate.
My wife's peruvian family had 14 siblings but none of those sivlings had more than 2 kids. My grandmother belonged to a family of 11 but, again nobody
had more than 3 kids.
The fact is that when a population is growing at a exponential rate without restrictions it will reproduce very differently then when the carring
capacity of the environment is reached.
The reason we're not starving is because we've adapted. And because we can adapt there will be no extinction.
And we will adapt to global warming in some way when the stakes get high enough. |
SkipJack's reply provides an example of the irrational thought programming that is the single most significant plague on humanity. His reply contains
a number of fallacies, theories and conclusion.
SkiJack makes a personal attack on me without making or rebutting a point? This is fallacious argument, ad hominem, and is used by people with no
point to make.
Skipjacks notes about Paul Erlich false predictions don't make a point. Using a negative conclusion as evidence doesn't support a valid argument or
make a point. Saying this didn't happen so therefore x is true doesn't make a point except that x didn't happen. Erlich was wrong, so what?
Furthermore, population isn't growing exponentially, it's unclear that is growing at all as we see in all developing countries population is
decreasing. The overall population is currently stable and many if not most countries are losing population as a product of births per family.
He uses the term global warming as a reference but that as well is theory while it is clear the earth was absolutely warmer previously, as
well with much higher CO2 than today. In fact, the highest global temperature recorded was in 1988, Mann's hockey stick theory of global warming has been proven demonstrably not just wrong but unethical and junk science.
So, SkipJack makes a series of inflamatory and false statements which support absolutely no other conclusion than irrational thought is rampant and
lack of reason is a most serious obstacle toward thoughtful discussion and human evolution.
So what is the cause of the loss of reason among humanity and what can we do to reverse the trend?
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid] |
Gnukid makes the following statement in the above , with a link to source it:
"He uses the term global warming as a reference but that as well is theory while it is clear the earth was absolutely warmer previously, as well with
much higher CO2 than today. In fact, the highest global temperature recorded was in 1988, Mann's hockey stick theory of global warming has been proven
demonstrably not just wrong but unethical and junk science."
Your link to the source that states the highest-ever global temperature was in 1988 is a New York Times article that was published in 1989!
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by Mexitron] |
Yes the highest recorded temperatures recorded was 1988, the data set goes back about 100 years. Evidence exists that temperatures were much higher in
the distant past. So in our modern times while cheap energy proliferated we do not see runaway temperature and increases nor do we see direct
correlation, in fact we see the peak was 1988 while populations have increased since then and energy use, while at the same time CO2 is down as is
global temperature.
The issue here is there is not a threat from CO2, temperature or population. Yet the promoters of global catastrophe, Paul Ehrlich, Mexitron,
SkipJack, Goat, John Holdren and the like are busy predicting worldwide catastrophe that has not been evidenced.
How many times to we remain faithful that dire predictions shall come to pass when the predictors are wrong everytime? At what time does rational
thought precede faith in the religion of global l catastrophe.
If someone arrived in your town and started barking that people are the biggest threat, worse than Hitler, and population growth measured in babies
born are the greatest threat known to man along with cheap energy so you must support forces abortion, sterlilization, austerity and restrict
under-developed countries from access to cheap energy, and they demonstrated they had a track record of failed predictions and catastrophes, wouldn't
you pause to think for a minute and conclude the track record of doomsday predictors fail to take into account that people naturally overcome
obstacles and that challenges to growth are the force that prompts scientific invention.
If we subscribed to SkipJack and his empty argument against humanity, liberty and proliferation of cheap energy we would be destined to live in a
static and oppressed society restricted from travel and the modern advances that we benefit from, these eco-ethicists promote restricting the
distribution of innovation that has made our lives more enjoyable, boating, flying in planes, heat, hot water, water pressure, transportation.
SkipJack can you make a point supporting your argument in any way and provide a reference, it can't be that hard so you have to resort to personal
empty attacks and false attribution.
|
|
|
watizname
Senior Nomad
Posts: 792
Registered: 8-7-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by gnukid
You keep hearing that population is growing exponentially promoted by Ehrlich and Malthus among others yet it's clear that all around the world births
have decreased greatly in all developing countries, and the USA's constant wars are killing people as well in the many millions and depleted uranium
from bombs is continuing to reduce birth rate as well as life expectancy, japan, usa, russia, china, europe, latin america all are experiencing
reduced birth rate due to more successful modern economies based on energy availability.
The true numbers of population are not available though I challenge you to point to a developing country with an increasing birth rate and population,
therefore one can conclude that if countries are allowed to use energy and resources to have power to light and cook and use machinery to create a 1st
world middle class lifestyle, population doesn't explode and catastrophe doesn't occur as predicted.
Even if population was increasing there isn't an arbitrary number that is the maximum the earth can support, since people and science evolve to work
things out. In the early 1900's there were piles of manure in each city, miles high, it was the most serious problem facing humanity. Then when oil
was found to be a useful energy source that could run motors the problem of pollution caused by horse manure was solved. So oil wasn't the so called
ecological and economic disaster it is purported to be, in fact oil was an ecological and economic savior to humanity to reduce catastrophic
pollution.
So, you can see there are a number of fallacies that are repeated that are pure conjecture. Oil has produced a more ecological earth and helped to
reduce the need for high birthrates and has helped to create a balance and reduce pollution.
One can compare the vista in developed cities in the USA today to 20-30 years when you could see an outline of smog present at all time and today you
do not due to improved methods of combustion in cars, trucks and coal factories.
[Edited on 7-8-2012 by gnukid] |
I just spent the last two months working in Burbank CA, a very developed city in Southern California. There was smog every single day. You could see
it, smell it, feel it on your skin, and wheeze it when you breathed. So much for the improved methods of combustion. I guess the vista was still
there, but my eyes were tearing so badly I couldn't see it.
I yam what I yam and that\'s all what I yam.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by watizname
I just spent the last two months working in Burbank CA, a very developed city in Southern California. There was smog every single day. You could see
it, smell it, feel it on your skin, and wheeze it when you breathed. So much for the improved methods of combustion. I guess the vista was still
there, but my eyes were tearing so badly I couldn't see it. |
It's a bit more complex than saying it was smoggy so therefore people are bad and should be punished.
The discussion is about correlation, social policies and theoretical ideas versus freedom to pursue innovation and allow people and economies to solve
their problems through innovation in free markets versus oppressive forced austerity and punishing taxes that only transfer wealth to a private group
as opposed to promote healthy economies.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
