Right on point. Sadly, the US NEEDS to lead this sector. It can become the next economic boom. But half of Congress services a population that doesn't accept evolution, let alone climate change.
Global Warming: Man made or Nature's Cycle
- Thread starter bizousoft
- Start date
Right on point. Sadly, the US NEEDS to lead this sector. It can become the next economic boom. But half of Congress services a population that doesn't accept evolution, let alone climate change.
Thanks for the plug.
I'm not fighting for anything. I just posted some facts. Draw from them what you will.
It's very dangerous to assume that "everyone agrees" and even if they did, an argumentum ad populum is not a logical point in argument.
Whether one scientist, all scientists or no scientists agree, doesn't prove anything. Truth is not decided by consensus.
Extrapolating trends is not scientific. We have to be careful to remember that none of us are omniscient, and there is no way we can know for sure what will happen in the future, particularly with a model as complicated as the earth.
Yes, we need to be good stewards of our home. But we won't get there by treating every Malthusian theory as legitimate.
You're welcome! Please don't drop me as a customer if I make you look ill-informed here, ok? ;p
Even if no one has "proven it" (which they may have, I'm not fully sure) I don't see any science at all out there showing the opposite.
Sure the oil companies are funding science aimed at proving global warming is not man-made, but can you point to any scientists at all doing science that shows that we're not growing too fast for the world to be able to handle?
In fact their are INDUSTRIES built around alleviating the problems with overpopulation, crowding, water and soil and air pollution, etc. Basically every problem that is caused by overpopulation has it's own industry built up of hundreds or thousands of companies selling products or services to attempt alleviation of those problems.
...I think they're pretty convinced.
So overpopulation is at least as proven as evolution is; possibly more so because of all the evidence that has been collected during the height of the problem to date.
Furthermore, go visit a country like India, and you'll see for yourself that overcrowding is real, is here, and is something to deeply fear. Anyone not scared of it is basically spoiled and sticking their heads in the sand.
Very complicated, I fully agree. Usually multiple stimulus act on a subject at the same time, all the time, and it's hard for scientists to study more than one of those stimulus at once.
Here's the thing though; when they collect data like in all of the charts that I've posted above, they are basing any future prediction on the single stimulus that they are tracking for that study.
It's only when you've considered all of the stimulus acting at once on a trend (such as population growth) that you can approach a realistic outcome.
Each of the examples I gave, such as Fertility Rates, Life expectancy growth, Sea level rise, agricultural decline, and lack of usable land to grow into each paint a moderately bleak picture.
Each one.
But they'll all be acting on our population at the same time.
No charts would dare show you how that could turn out... They all would look like a bad made-for-sci-fi-channel movie plot.
But that's the best data we have for this situation.
Any you're all pooh-poohing it like we're freaking invincible.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
What you're asking for is a negative proof. It's not logically possible to prove a negative.
Oil companies fund some scientists, and political activists and the scientific environmental establishment fund others. I don't particularly care for either side of this. I try to apply reason and not get caught up in good guy, bad guy narratives.
Here is an important dissent, from a critical thinker.
Physicist Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims
Absolutely.
We can't, because we can never see a Black Swan until after it happens.
But where are the counter-balancing examples? If you look only at one half of the story, sure it looks miserable.
Would you call that a balanced and reasonable approach to rule out social and technological change from having any effect on the future?
Incomplete data is still incomplete, even if it is all we have.
No need to setup an us versus them. I agree with you. We need to take care of the earth as best we can. But we can't draw conclusions on FUD. Malthus was promoting the same thing 200 years ago. This concern about population and resources is not new to the post-industrial era.
Think the Earth is finite? Think again | spiked
We're good Luke. I understand you're passionate about this. Don't assume people who don't share your passion are idiots or evil.
Some alternative information to consider (hours of video, bad for work productivity)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8talvLDfow"]YouTube - Authors@Google: David Friedman[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0"]YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul[/ame]
I understand completely, and I know you're neither ill-willed nor an idiot. Just misinformed.
...It is easy to see how so considering the references you posted, but I'll get to those later...
lukep said:
I feel that this theme of similar arguments is all very harmful to the survival of our way of life, if not our very existence. :ugone2far:
On one side, you've got tons of hard scientific evidence; not proof but lots of evidence that is disaster is on it's way. On the other side, not so much. Mostly opinion and this kind of counterargument.
Why oh why is this an acceptable excuse not to get busy saving us from the likley (but not 100% assured) fate that is (apparently) headed our way?
It reminds me very, very much of the evolution argument in fact. Evolution still has not been proven 100% but multiple BRANCHES OF SCIENCE are based upon it today. It is truth labeled theory, but only because the nature of it makes it difficult to prove without a doubt to all.
lukep said:
It is the job of each scientist making the paper/study that the charts are derived from to account for the other half of the story; right there in the chart. They are built in.
They scientists who did the Fertility rates studies didn't just say "lets make a chart to see how bad it could theoretically get," they actually gathered all available data known on the subject, did the math with both pros and cons in the equation, and the result is the charts presented.
In fact it's almost never one guy or group that does these... They are multiple data sources from multiple sources around the globe put together... So there is usually much less room for personal bias in these studies than most people seem to think.
200 years ago we were FAR smaller than we are now, doubling every 17 years on average at the moment. Malthus may have been wrong about the timeframe and his initial carrying capacity estimations; but his overall theory is in the ballpark.
We're too fucking crowded. And overcrowding isn't fun.
Awesome clip. I was raised on peanut butter, jelly, and Sci-fi and I have heard of Mr. Friedman long ago. I may even have one of his books in mothballs right now. He's one smart cookie.
There wasn't anything in that clip on overpopulation, but his stance on global warming has been interesting. (Albeit questionable.)
He basically says that Global warming is a smaller threat than 1. AI robot uprisings, 2. Nanobots & 3. Nuclear war. He says that
mathematically those three threats are more likely to affect us catastrophically sooner than GW. I guess I could believe that.
However those three threats are going to happen fast! If we see them coming in 5-10 years we can avert them. Not so with global climate change! -We may need 100 years to do something about GW before it's too late, which it may already be. We just don't know.
This fool reminds me of a british version of Sarah Palin... How many times can one man reference Climategate??? U East Anglia was officially vindicated SIX times for that and this fool still uses the Rush Limbaugh handbook play #1 with it; Just ignore the facts and use it as evidence anyway.
At least he's taught me not to listen to science from politicians with no science background.
This article was so full of problems that I could fill up a book with counterpoints to it.
He makes classic bait-and-switch arguments that a 4-year-old could point out, such as saying how Antartica won't melt much with a 3 degree rise because the south pole doesn't get above -14 degrees...
Could somebody tell this Physicist that the entire continent of Antartica isn't fully located AT the south pole??? Sheesh. We observe many glaciers melt in Antartica every single year.
Worse, he actually says: "All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms."
I mean c'mon! The number of storms and death tolls from storms have very obviously been proven to be growing along with the average global temperature. As the ocean warms up, more hurricanes form... It's been like clockwork.
He should probably start entering the obvious, proven evidence into his computer models.
Worst of all, he claims that "A warmer world is a better world." I think I've already made the point here that this is stupid and naive. Warmer clearly means stormier and deadlier. The people in Russia and Pakistan might take offense at this line of thought after the Freak weather they had in 2010.
Most of his point, however, is the same as yours, Guerrila, that we can't be sure of the facts while interpolating separate data models.
Again, I have to say: Multiple stacks of evidence say that GW is likely; only opinion seems to say otherwise. And if the peices of evidence are in reality proven to be right, and their individual results happen at the same time, they would appear to multiply the effects of each other.
Finally, he is only talking about CO2-induced change, and pretty much my whole point here today is that population and the many other factors are a bigger driver than CO2. Anyone who keeps arguing about CO2 clearly hasn't thought this issue out far enough.
I saved the most vile for last. :angryfire:
This guys really seems to belive that a Googol freaking humans could all live on the planet and we'd be better off for it!
He clearly says that humans don't USE resources as much as we GENERATE resources... As if we don't have any limits at all on our air supply, water supply, or food supply. What a harmful way to view the Earth!
Of course our ingenuity has allowed for us to compensate for some problems with overpopulation before, but they we're still worse off for having the original problem overall.
It's exactly as if no one told him that:
A. It's too expensive to turn salt water into fresh water.
B. We must use a quarter of a square mile of crop/grazing land for each human on the planet to eat.
C. Species are going extinct in record numbers: According to the World Resources Institute, 100 species go extinct each day (four every hour) due to tropical deforestation alone. (Man-killed)
D. The population growth curve has been exponential, not just 'steady.'
E. Sure, we CAN drink water recycled out of our urine, but it's nasty!
F. It's not very sanitary to trudge through human shit on the street...
He kept harping on and on that human beings are smart and will find a way to overcome. -A complete religous Zealot! He believes humans are basically perfect and the Earth is just a resources that we have improved upon greatly.
What most startled me about his site (I saw one or two of his other Earth-hating posts) was his total and complete disrespect for living standards. It is apparent from what I read that he hasn't travelled to India or China himself, but he talks about them a lot as if their overpopulation is something to be regarded as a great achievment, despite people pooping in the middle of the street there. (Yes, he even mentioned the poop!)
He is disgusting, and has no idea of how important living standards are. It's as if he thinks there is no difference between living in a dirty, ugly, smelly world and one that is clean and beautiful.
I proudly admit that what I'm fighting for has more to do with a high quality of life rather than just having more neighbors. -He clearly says that I am wrong &/or selfish for feeling this way.
Could he be right on this? Am I the bad guy for not wanting myself nor my loved ones to traverse through shit on our way to hard labor jobs each day, just to afford crappy food and a leaky roof over our tiny 1-room shithole?
Fuck that Zealot. May he move to the slums of Bombay for the rest of his life.
Because a lot of us, my dad's generation even more, have been hearing for 30, 40, 60 years that if we don't do something NOW the world is going to end.. Nukes, commies, ice age, oil shortages, global warming, Y2K, Terrorists, etc etc etc etc.. And we just don't care any more..
Every single one of these events has been used to gain more control over the general population and put more and more money in the pockets of people that already have lots and lots of money (on all sides of the political spectrum).. I read an article just the other day where several scientists are predicting a mini ice age to start in the next 25 years.. And like the GW guys, they have their hands out for research grants..
I have trouble treating things which are not 100% true as true. I suffer from an adherence to logic, and logically 100% is not 99% or vice versa (law of identity).
As far as probability, Dr. Friedman covers that. Lots of disaster scenarios are probable.
As Feydakin mentions, I spent my childhood terrified of commies, nuclear war, over population and the impending ice age, predicted ironically by the same scientific establishment that 20 years later predict global warming, and now just call it climate change because the warming has been interrupted.
As Dr. Hayden explains, tipping points go to the rail and stay there, they don't retreat. The weather is not proving we're at a tipping point, and the models have failed to predict this cooling. So the models are always right, except when they are wrong.
I don't have an excuse for not getting busy about something I don't know is 100% true. I also don't go to church on Sunday to hedge my bet that the afterlife isn't about burning for eternity in Hell. I'm not a big fan of Pascal's wager.
Thanks for the discussion Luke, and thanks for carefully observing the material I posted. I won't have anything more to add.
Fair enough, guys.
You both make fine points that you have been burned before and are tired of this kind of doomsday shit.
I'm 90% there with you in fact. AGW can't be as bad as they say...
Although climate change is clearly getting worse I will be the first to say it's NOT mostly driven by carbon. I point the finger more at population & species extinction in this thread but there are likely 100 reasons why things have gotten worse, not the least of which is the Solar Maximum due in 2013 now; That may be heating us up more than anything else.
So in case anyone mistook my ramblings here as "Oh shit, build a bunker and jump in" kind of talk, let me assure you the only thing that these points have convinced me of is not to reproduce.
Because no matter who started it or what's driving it, the world IS rapidly getting stormier, uglier, more crowded, more stinky, germier, less diverse, less tasty, with less food, water, and land available. This is not somewhere I would choose to send someone I love.
You both make fine points that you have been burned before and are tired of this kind of doomsday shit.
I'm 90% there with you in fact. AGW can't be as bad as they say...
Although climate change is clearly getting worse I will be the first to say it's NOT mostly driven by carbon. I point the finger more at population & species extinction in this thread but there are likely 100 reasons why things have gotten worse, not the least of which is the Solar Maximum due in 2013 now; That may be heating us up more than anything else.
So in case anyone mistook my ramblings here as "Oh shit, build a bunker and jump in" kind of talk, let me assure you the only thing that these points have convinced me of is not to reproduce.
Because no matter who started it or what's driving it, the world IS rapidly getting stormier, uglier, more crowded, more stinky, germier, less diverse, less tasty, with less food, water, and land available. This is not somewhere I would choose to send someone I love.
HOLY SHIT.
Well, I guess I'm going to have to change my stance on CO2 then.
This 13-page booklet (free download) just got published a couple days back and it is absolutely devastating to all arguments against CO2-based AGW.
I'm more convinced than ever, we're fucked, and soon.
About the only argument it doesn't address and completely destroy is if the scientists of the world were smoking crack cocaine while taking measurements. -Highly recommended for those interested in AGW.
Well, I guess I'm going to have to change my stance on CO2 then.
This 13-page booklet (free download) just got published a couple days back and it is absolutely devastating to all arguments against CO2-based AGW.
I'm more convinced than ever, we're fucked, and soon.
About the only argument it doesn't address and completely destroy is if the scientists of the world were smoking crack cocaine while taking measurements. -Highly recommended for those interested in AGW.
Bill Gates also believe the population is part of the equation for reducing CO2 thus reducing global warming, oops i mean climate change. However, you don't need to worry, new health care and new vaccines will reduce the population so no need to for the population to volunteer to not reproduce.
Mocked Meteorologist Gets Last Laugh - Fox News Video - FoxNews.com
Interesting interview with a real scientist.. You can tell he's real because he doesn't have time for personal hygiene..
Interesting interview with a real scientist.. You can tell he's real because he doesn't have time for personal hygiene..
I love it! Hilarious...
Thanks for that pick-me-up, Feydakin.
I'd expect nothing less than such a fruitcake on fox news.
My favorite bit was when this troll said he'd predicted the ENDING of the heat wave in Russia and the ENDING of the monsoons in Pakistan this year... Classic.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg]YouTube - 1958 - Global Warming - It's NOT newly known[/ame]
Why are they calling it 'climate change' now? - CSMonitor.com
even through the 1970s, news reports continued to overwhelmingly refer to global temperature increases as "climate change."
This began to change in the 1980s...
And then it started to swing back in the other direction, helped, in part by conservatives who thought "climate change" sounded less threatening.
I don't know what the models claim to predict, but a month or whatever of cooling doesn't mean much. They tend to look at it in terms of not just years, but decades.
2010 on track to be Earth's warmest year on record - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com
Taken from this page: A Global Temperature Chart Not in Gore
Notice where 2009 is on that map. We are actually coming down from a Global Warming period.
hey thanks for this chart. :thumbsup:
^That chart has very little basis in any facts, whatsoever. ANY Climatoligists will laugh at it. (Obviously excepting the questionable ones that are behind it.)
If you want FACTS, not Fox news, click here and download this report. -It's only 13 pages of light reading with lots of big pictures explaining the SCIENCE behind each of the global warming denier's arguments.
Anyone still denying that man-made CO2 is hurting us a lot just doesn't have a grasp on the actual facts.
-But hey, it's cool if you don't have the facts, I didn't believe them (at elast about CO2) until earlier this week.
If you want FACTS, not Fox news, click here and download this report. -It's only 13 pages of light reading with lots of big pictures explaining the SCIENCE behind each of the global warming denier's arguments.
Anyone still denying that man-made CO2 is hurting us a lot just doesn't have a grasp on the actual facts.
-But hey, it's cool if you don't have the facts, I didn't believe them (at elast about CO2) until earlier this week.
This is a pretty interesting opinion piece if you guys haven't seen it:
Michael Crichton: Environmentalism As Religion | Climate Realists
Crichton is a pretty sharp dude.
Michael Crichton: Environmentalism As Religion | Climate Realists
Crichton is a pretty sharp dude.
Living on a planet that is regulated for life means things must stay in homeostasis. Hypothetically, if the earth global tempurature rises to a critical point then it has many catastrophic effects.
1. Many animal species like the polar bear, penguin, etc will be extinct. These "arctic" species need the cold to survive. remember not all animals are as adaptable as us humans. Unfortunately, they were not created to sustain life in a "warmer" environments.
2. If our icebergs & glaciers melt then, the oceans rise to unstable levels. We can say goodbye to our coastal cities & modern techy establishments.
3. Lets not forget, There are so many other species that are dependent on nature cycle. Subtract one important ingredient like temperature and the whole food chain will suffer.
However, on the flip side.. I have read article claiming that global warning is happening on every single plant in our solar system. I'd like to test that one for myself.
Anyone have spaceship I can borrow ?