|
On September 30 2013 07:01 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 06:31 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 06:14 BillGates wrote:On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit. CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it. So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence. I'm not imagining, you just repeated it. You say in one sentence that CO2 is "hugely important", and then next sentence you call it "miniscule". And then, by your logic, you deduce that since there is only a miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with, adding more miniscule amounts "doesn't have any influence". This is faulty, dishonest, sloppy, biased reasoning on so many levels. You've latched onto this numerical figure without any context for what it actually means. Your logic is simply 0.38 + 0.03 = some other small number, so obviously it's all a hoax and the scientists are lying. I guess it's a theory, but a better theory might be that you're scientifically illiterate. That fact that you have no clue what the 0.0380% number is, proves that you are clueless, uninformed, easily mislead and propagandized little boy with no clue about reality. The number is how much CO2 there is in the global atmosphere, its the percentage of it. We humans have added 0.0030% to 0.0350% which is why its increased from 0.0350 to 0.0380% over the past 50 years. It is completely insignificant regarding to the global temperature.
I don't know where exacly you get those values from but according to This it has actually gone up by 35% and not the 8.5% your numbers indicate.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.
|
On September 30 2013 06:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:34 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 04:59 YumYumGranola wrote:
<insert tired idea already disproven/can be disproven with 10 minutes research, eg we haven't warmed in last 15 years, etc> On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:
Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts".
It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:
So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. On September 29 2013 10:24 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Additionally, its totally untrue that we've had cooling in the past decade; the top 10 warmest years on record, have all been in the last 15. This fiery rhetoric is especially jarring in light of the fact that it is simply wrong. Don't be so dogmatic. The OP study itself agrees with the fellow you all are lambasting. What the Climate Report Concedes
In all sorts of ways, the report climbs down from what was said six years ago, yet like any bureaucratic committee, it does its utmost to disguise these retreats. Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, an economist and forecaster who has made a specialty of examining and challenging the IPCC’s pronouncements, summarizes the latest proclamation thus: “Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
So here are some of the things the IPCC has now conceded:
- Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago. [emphasis added]
- Climate sensitivity (the amount of warming likely to be caused eventually, if carbon dioxide levels double) can no longer even be calculated. “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The bottom end of the range of probable climate sensitivity has been lowered, however, from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the top end remains the same: 4.5 degrees Celsius. This broadens the range of possible outcomes—that is, increases the uncertainty.
- Transient climate response (the actual warming likely to be experienced by around 2080 if carbon dioxide levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels by that time) is now thought to be less than they thought four years before. It is now thought to be in the range 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.
- Antarctic sea ice increased, instead of decreasing as predicted: “Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations.” This is awkward. If the models get the Antarctic wrong, then maybe they got the Arctic right by accident.
- The big concession is the one the one IPCC cannot quite bring itself to be explicit about: the failure of the models to match reality. The text of the summary released today says: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” Yet a chart in the draft of its full report, due out on Monday, tells a very different story, of actual temperature measurements over the past 23 years falling below the projections made on each of four previous occasions. Its own chart says, in other words, that it is unlikely that the models are right.
It’s a shame the climate debate remains so heated. Perhaps someday the rhetoric surrounding climate change can cool down to reflect the modesty of the predictions we’re actually able to make.http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/ You, and the guy who published this article, should learn to actually read your carefully selected quotes. The line in the report is: "Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” What this means, is that Earth's surface temperatures have not been increasing as fast over the last 10-15 years, than previously. It does not mean that the Earth's temperature has not been increasing, as you and this guy are claiming, it just means that Earth's temperature is not increasing as fast as previously. If you look at the data, you will see that over the last decade, Earth's temperature has in fact been increasing, and your claim of the contrary is completely spurious. His claim that the Earth has been cooling is completely false, as is your claim that the OP supports his reasoning.
The IPCC report downplays the wrong predictions in as flattering a way to themselves they possibly can. That's no surprise.
The quote you pointed does indeed seem to be referring to the lack of observed temperature increase for over a decade. The Time article is correct about the lack of warming, and there's not much else that quote could be referring to.
|
On September 28 2013 05:54 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 05:39 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:32 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 03:13 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population. Obligatory: ignorance is bliss. You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people? If there were 7 million of us rather than 7 billion, this conversation would not be taking place. The urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful impulses we have, but in the modern world having six children serves no purpose at all. Again, humans rarely see beyond their immediate concerns, at most that of their close family or tribe. I never said it was going to be easy, or pleasant, I am not claiming to have a way to make it a smooth path, but the facts remain, we cannot protect the global ecosystem for very long with the current rates of energy consumption and population growth, and that's it. You view is too narrow, we need to look beyond the immediate concerns of the current generation. The question of global warming has always been about the future, whatever damage we do today we won't live to see the true consequences. Ignorance indeed. You accuse me of having a narrow view when you don't realise it's not Europe or America that has the biggest population on this planet. I named the countries/areas and they are poor, hence have to have many children that support their elders. I honestly think you don't have any idea of what you're talking about, maybe travelling would have you get educated and more mature. Pretty easy to say others should see the big picture when they struggle to survive on a day to day basis. "Modern world", lol. You make an awful lot of assumptions and then argue from the absurd premise you set up. I am perfectly aware of the current demographic. You named nothing, you made some vague reference to "poor places" which means a lot of nothing. I''ve been to every continent in the world except Australia, and not just the tourist tracks either. I've studied population trends for years, because I think it matters. Your weak, sanctimonious attempts at insults are so off the mark. You understand nothing of human nature and are completely blind to anything that goes beyond your insular little world of rich and poor. How simple it must be to live in such a black and white landscape. And how on earth does having a lot of children helping them survive on a day to day basis? You seem not to grasp even the basis of the longer view, you are stuck in some mental hamster wheel where the only thing that can help is more children to continue the same destructive pattern that is doing immense damage to our planet. "Support their elders"? You really think that is a viable model? Mass production of children to to lean on once you grow old? You honestly cannot see the massive gaping hole in that reasoning? Yes, your view is narrow indeed, this goes beyond anyone alive today, or tomorrow. But you go ahead and sit there on your high horse, just try not to get too lonely up there at the peak of Mount Moral Paragon.
Thanks for proving what I wrote earlier. You have no idea what you're talking about. Come to rural China, rural India and see what it's like. All in all you're some armchair "genius" that has solutions for everything.
Of course it's not viable if you think about the big picture. But for THEM it's all they have. Even if some clown from Sweden thinks he knows better and maybe even tried lecturing them, lol.
"Hey, umm. I need you to have less children. Yeah I have no idea how to help you guys, sorry for you being poor. Just have less children, mkay?" Brilliant.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 30 2013 08:44 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 06:16 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On September 29 2013 13:34 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 04:59 YumYumGranola wrote:
<insert tired idea already disproven/can be disproven with 10 minutes research, eg we haven't warmed in last 15 years, etc> On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:
Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts".
It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:
So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. On September 29 2013 10:24 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Additionally, its totally untrue that we've had cooling in the past decade; the top 10 warmest years on record, have all been in the last 15. This fiery rhetoric is especially jarring in light of the fact that it is simply wrong. Don't be so dogmatic. The OP study itself agrees with the fellow you all are lambasting. What the Climate Report Concedes
In all sorts of ways, the report climbs down from what was said six years ago, yet like any bureaucratic committee, it does its utmost to disguise these retreats. Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, an economist and forecaster who has made a specialty of examining and challenging the IPCC’s pronouncements, summarizes the latest proclamation thus: “Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
So here are some of the things the IPCC has now conceded:
- Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago. [emphasis added]
- Climate sensitivity (the amount of warming likely to be caused eventually, if carbon dioxide levels double) can no longer even be calculated. “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The bottom end of the range of probable climate sensitivity has been lowered, however, from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the top end remains the same: 4.5 degrees Celsius. This broadens the range of possible outcomes—that is, increases the uncertainty.
- Transient climate response (the actual warming likely to be experienced by around 2080 if carbon dioxide levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels by that time) is now thought to be less than they thought four years before. It is now thought to be in the range 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.
- Antarctic sea ice increased, instead of decreasing as predicted: “Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations.” This is awkward. If the models get the Antarctic wrong, then maybe they got the Arctic right by accident.
- The big concession is the one the one IPCC cannot quite bring itself to be explicit about: the failure of the models to match reality. The text of the summary released today says: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” Yet a chart in the draft of its full report, due out on Monday, tells a very different story, of actual temperature measurements over the past 23 years falling below the projections made on each of four previous occasions. Its own chart says, in other words, that it is unlikely that the models are right.
It’s a shame the climate debate remains so heated. Perhaps someday the rhetoric surrounding climate change can cool down to reflect the modesty of the predictions we’re actually able to make.http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/ You, and the guy who published this article, should learn to actually read your carefully selected quotes. The line in the report is: "Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” What this means, is that Earth's surface temperatures have not been increasing as fast over the last 10-15 years, than previously. It does not mean that the Earth's temperature has not been increasing, as you and this guy are claiming, it just means that Earth's temperature is not increasing as fast as previously. If you look at the data, you will see that over the last decade, Earth's temperature has in fact been increasing, and your claim of the contrary is completely spurious. His claim that the Earth has been cooling is completely false, as is your claim that the OP supports his reasoning. The IPCC report downplays the wrong predictions in as flattering a way to themselves they possibly can. That's no surprise. The quote you pointed does indeed seem to be referring to the lack of observed temperature increase for over a decade. The Time article is correct about the lack of warming, and there's not much else that quote could be referring to.
Just going to relink an earlier graph as I think it's enlightening when placed along side the graph above.
![[image loading]](http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif)
'skeptics' simply keep changing their dates for 'Global Cooling', constantly confusing short-term noise and long-term trends
This is the article which zeal. used when he linked it:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
Also might as well link the other article on the same site about ocean temperatures as it gives a little bit of a broader picture of the problem even if we confine ourselves to the same short period of time:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon.
And here is a link to the section of the site which sorts climate myths by taxonomy for any skeptics who are simply looking for more information. I found it particularly helpful myself.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
|
If we assume that Global Warming is mainly man- made, and we assume this would be proven beyond any doubt, what would that change?
Close to nothing.
Like hell states like China would just stop polluting, and why would they?
We had our industrial revolution, building up our countries on the cost of the environment, assuming climate change is mainly man made. Now that were at the top, we got the money and know how to do it cleaner too. Other countries dont, or at least not without significantly slowing down their economy growth.
Once again the 1. World is like: " Yeh, we did it, but you shouldnt be allowed to do it". And as long 1 big country has an advantage by not caring about the environment, others will just do the same, to stay competetive.
A question, which is deemed, this important, yet would barely change anything if answered, is, at least with this much effort/money put into it, sort of wasted energy.
Im not saying this isnt an important topic, or not worth it, i truly think it is, if the theory proves correct.
But staying realistic, it wont change much in global politics, therefore, waste of money and resources, at least with the amount put into it.
They should try a different approach. Take the research money on this, and put it into making cleaner energy/production technology available for free to 2nd World countries.
If the thoery would be correct, we wouldve already made the situation better. If the theory is incorrect, some money is wasted, but at least people in those countries have better living conditions.
Thats more use of the money than if the theory ist costly proven correct and way more use if it proves wrong..
|
On September 30 2013 21:14 freewareplayer wrote:
If we assume that Global Warming is mainly man- made, and we assume this would be proven beyond any doubt, what would that change?
Close to nothing.
Like hell states like China would just stop polluting, and why would they?
Actually, it's the United States that is the main obstacle to international treaties on reducing carbon emissions.
It's the United States where global warming denial has become an article of the faith on the Republican side.
|
On September 30 2013 07:01 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 06:31 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 06:14 BillGates wrote:On September 30 2013 01:24 Leporello wrote:On September 30 2013 01:07 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:On September 29 2013 06:06 JinDesu wrote:
If temperature increase wasn't manmade, but would cause climate changes that could affect billions around the world, I think we would still investigate into how to revert or counteract that increase. It'd be silly otherwise. Its 0.6 degrees Celsius over 100 years, I mean if you think that is end of the world type stuff you are absurdist, we've had 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the medieval period and humans thrived, it was the golden age of mankind and there was plentiful of everything, food was in abundance, you name. Golden period on earth for humans. With today technology and adaptability that we have we can deal with pretty much +5 or -5 increase/decrease in temperatures, the truth is its not getting warmer or colder, the temperature is in constant flux and is within its completely normal and natural bounds to go +/- 3 degree Celsius. As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years. Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller. I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts". It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is. 0.6 degrees Celsius is the alarmist own data, The medieval warm period is the alarmist own data, cosmic rays, sun spots, the rest are all major factors, I mean we don't live in a vacuum and the vacuum is in a box and so the sun which creates the climate on earth, that creates the seasons, that creates day and night has no effect on how warm it is. I mean its insane, its insane to not include the sun as a cause is the minuscule, slight 0.6 degrees warming. Its like saying the moon is made out of cheese, its like saying trees don't need water to grow, its absurd. 0.030% is the amount of change the carbon we've released would have on the global CO2 levels and I'm actually adding out of thin air more just to round it out to bring it to 0.1%. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. There is overall 0.0380 CO2 in the atmosphere, its not even a factor of overall elements on earth. How can about 0.030 of carbon that we've released to an already miniscule amount have any effects on the global temperatures? It is absolutely insane to think there is. If CO2 were a major "factor of overall elements", well, I'm not sure life would exist at all. You're cherry-picking small numbers without giving them any correlation. I mean, look at how small those decimals are! How could 0.0380 of anything hurt anybody? That's your argument. Never mind all the things in nature that function based on there being trace amounts of elements in the right proportions. All the carbon we've released is so small compared to other stuff on the planet. This is a very telling, misleading statement that someone looking at the atmosphere from a truly scientific perspective would NEVER make. Our atmosphere itself -- the very thing we're talking about, that we all breathe and live under -- is miniscule, if you want to make size comparisons to the entirety of the planet. If the planet were a globe, the atmosphere wouldn't be thicker than a sheet of cheap paper. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, if you even think of looking at the problem from that sort of perspective. You don't know what makes our atmosphere work like it does, you don't know its fragility. And the people who do study such things, you just dismiss. (Although I don't think anyone is really calling the atmosphere "fragile", as we've certainly burned a whole lot of fossil residue already. I don't think anyone living in Mexico City, where pollution visibly floats in the air, would call the atmosphere fragile, although I'm sure many of them believe it's in trouble) The only thing here that is "absolutely insane" is people's willingness to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research because they think they know better, while subtly having to acknowledge that they don't know shit. CO2 is hugely important for life on earth, no one said it isn't. It isn't important at all in the climate in the part that we've released 0.030% of the 0.0380 of it. So you are just imagining stuff that no one ever said. I was very clear that CO2 is already miniscule at .0.380 and adding 0.030 doesn't have any influence. I'm not imagining, you just repeated it. You say in one sentence that CO2 is "hugely important", and then next sentence you call it "miniscule". And then, by your logic, you deduce that since there is only a miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with, adding more miniscule amounts "doesn't have any influence". This is faulty, dishonest, sloppy, biased reasoning on so many levels. You've latched onto this numerical figure without any context for what it actually means. Your logic is simply 0.38 + 0.03 = some other small number, so obviously it's all a hoax and the scientists are lying. I guess it's a theory, but a better theory might be that you're scientifically illiterate. That fact that you have no clue what the 0.0380% number is, proves that you are clueless, uninformed, easily mislead and propagandized little boy with no clue about reality. The number is how much CO2 there is in the global atmosphere, its the percentage of it. We humans have added 0.0030% to 0.0350% which is why its increased from 0.0350 to 0.0380% over the past 50 years. It is completely insignificant regarding to the global temperature. Arrogance and ignorance...what a combo.
I know it's a cliché to link to the Dunning-Kruger effect. But that is really what is happening here.
|
On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/68ihdOp.png) As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Show nested quote +Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. Show nested quote +The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.php And as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument.
What a load of crap. I will give an hint, rich people are old, old people overall tend to consider global warming doesn't exist. There is a huge generational opposition in global warming, even in the US (one of the most skeptical country) the youth is vastly acknowledging global warming.
IQ has nothing to do with it. "Believe in them they are intelligent" LOL. And what, scientists are dumb ?
|
On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ?
A lot are tho.
Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture.
|
On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture.
I'd love to see how you came by the idea that "a lot are tho".
Anyone who is out of touch with reality and unable to see the big picture can be considered dumb. However, to automatically assume that a lot of scientists are out of touch with reality and unable to see the big picture is insulting. I know quite a few scientists and engineers, and I assure you that they are as world-aware as anyone else - and maybe even more world-aware than quite a lot of other professions.
|
On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture. On one hand you have a bunch of people who put a man on the Moon, discovered some of the fundamental laws of the universe, and developed the principles of modern technology which led to a revolution in living standards.
On the other hand, you have businessmen who pride themselves on ruthless tactics and telling lies for living, and whose technical knowledge extends about as far as a supply and demand curve that they dimly remember from a business class.
|
On September 30 2013 08:47 zdfgucker wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 05:54 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 05:39 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:32 Squat wrote:On September 28 2013 03:13 zdfgucker wrote:On September 28 2013 03:07 Squat wrote:
If we can achieve a lower population, there would be no need for either mass death or impoverishment. If humans could exercise a modicum of foresight and self-restraint, i.e. stop breeding like rabbits, this problem would more or less solve itself. The human species can maintain a viable population with less than 1% of current global population, but because we are generally selfish and driven by very simple, primal imperatives, it is unlikely to change.
If there is one message we should try to broadcast to help secure a future for civilisation and coming generations, it would be this: Use a fucking condom.
Easy to say when you come from a country where your children don't have to support you when you become old, when children die of lack of medicine, war or are getting abducted. Big parts of Africa, India and also China are living in horrible conditions, maybe helping them first would be better than claiming we should achieve a lower population. Obligatory: ignorance is bliss. You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people? If there were 7 million of us rather than 7 billion, this conversation would not be taking place. The urge to reproduce is one of the most powerful impulses we have, but in the modern world having six children serves no purpose at all. Again, humans rarely see beyond their immediate concerns, at most that of their close family or tribe. I never said it was going to be easy, or pleasant, I am not claiming to have a way to make it a smooth path, but the facts remain, we cannot protect the global ecosystem for very long with the current rates of energy consumption and population growth, and that's it. You view is too narrow, we need to look beyond the immediate concerns of the current generation. The question of global warming has always been about the future, whatever damage we do today we won't live to see the true consequences. Ignorance indeed. You accuse me of having a narrow view when you don't realise it's not Europe or America that has the biggest population on this planet. I named the countries/areas and they are poor, hence have to have many children that support their elders. I honestly think you don't have any idea of what you're talking about, maybe travelling would have you get educated and more mature. Pretty easy to say others should see the big picture when they struggle to survive on a day to day basis. "Modern world", lol. You make an awful lot of assumptions and then argue from the absurd premise you set up. I am perfectly aware of the current demographic. You named nothing, you made some vague reference to "poor places" which means a lot of nothing. I''ve been to every continent in the world except Australia, and not just the tourist tracks either. I've studied population trends for years, because I think it matters. Your weak, sanctimonious attempts at insults are so off the mark. You understand nothing of human nature and are completely blind to anything that goes beyond your insular little world of rich and poor. How simple it must be to live in such a black and white landscape. And how on earth does having a lot of children helping them survive on a day to day basis? You seem not to grasp even the basis of the longer view, you are stuck in some mental hamster wheel where the only thing that can help is more children to continue the same destructive pattern that is doing immense damage to our planet. "Support their elders"? You really think that is a viable model? Mass production of children to to lean on once you grow old? You honestly cannot see the massive gaping hole in that reasoning? Yes, your view is narrow indeed, this goes beyond anyone alive today, or tomorrow. But you go ahead and sit there on your high horse, just try not to get too lonely up there at the peak of Mount Moral Paragon. Thanks for proving what I wrote earlier. You have no idea what you're talking about. Come to rural China, rural India and see what it's like. All in all you're some armchair "genius" that has solutions for everything. Of course it's not viable if you think about the big picture. But for THEM it's all they have. Even if some clown from Sweden thinks he knows better and maybe even tried lecturing them, lol. "Hey, umm. I need you to have less children. Yeah I have no idea how to help you guys, sorry for you being poor. Just have less children, mkay?" Brilliant.
Again with the imbecilic assumptions and pathetic attempts at insults. You are either willfully obtuse or just plain dumb, and I honestly don't care which. You honestly think more children is somehow a solution for people in rural China and India? Are you truly that benightedly stupid? Do you not understand the underlying causes of poverty at all? Do you not know that education, empowerment of women, specifically their reproductive cycles and lower birth rates in general are ALWAYS the key to social and economic progress? No, you don't, because you don't know anything, you are a random loudmouth who thinks the world revolves around his distorted sense of right and wrong. And I don't know what I'm talking about? Your tunnel vision is the diameter of a straw.
Yes, I think about the big picture, because it's the only one that matters. It's pure pragmatism, the only thing that actually works. But hey, you seem so comfortable up there on your high horse, wouldn't want to upset your delicate sensibilities and black and white world. You are a joke, and a bad one at that. Go away.
User was warned for this post
|
@squat
You do understand that one of the reasons for that situation existing in the first place is that are too few resources being spread over too many people?
Which ones?
|
On September 30 2013 23:08 freewareplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 22:40 WhiteDog wrote:On September 30 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 23:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:+ Show Spoiler +the little assumption that intelligence correlates robustly with wealth is made up, just FYI to anyone mesmerized by that ass-pulled drivel. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/smart-doesnt-equal-rich/“Your IQ has really no relationship to your wealth,” says Jay Zagorsky of Ohio State University, the author of the paper. It’s based on surveys of more than 7,000 Americans now in their 40s who have been interviewed repeatedly since 1979. Here's the robust correlation Zaqwe was telling people about: As you can see from this data, intelligence clearly correlates perfectly with wealth.... The income-iq correlation is also quite weak, and as this author says: "Furthermore, a number of extremely intelligent people stated they had gotten themselves into financial difficulty. “People don't become rich just because they are smart,” said Jay Zagorsky, author of the study and a research scientist at Ohio State University 's Center for Human Resource Research. " The idea that wealthy or high income people might know better with regard to skepticism toward global warming is silly and unsupported Nobody used the word robustly until you joined the thread. But I apologize for using the word "wealth" wrong as this entire time we have been talking about high income people. From your own article: Previous researchers have found that IQ correlates with income — each extra point of IQ is worth between $200 and $600 in annual income — but this study finds no strong relationship between IQ and total wealth. Mr. Zagorsky isn’t sure why, although he suggests that smart people aren’t saving as much. The results confirmed research by other scholars that show people with higher IQ scores tend to earn higher incomes. In this study, each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.This means the average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top 2 percent of society (130) is currently between $6,000 and $18,500 a year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/osu-ydh042307.phpAnd as you can see in the post about income and global warming which sparked this discussion: So earning more than $1,000,000 yearly suggests they are highly intelligent, based on the correlation between income and intelligence. Everything I said was correct aside from my usage of the word wealth. I apologize for the grammatical error. Thankfully I didn't make any errors in argument. And what, scientists are dumb ? A lot are tho. Someone who cant see past his own five cents, or is completly out of touch with reality, will be dumb regardless of his IQ, just cause hes too focussed on his part of science to see the big picture.
So what bigger exists other than global warming? Someone in this thread said it ws just one of many problems facing humanity. While that is technically true, it is the one problem that will flat out kill us(and a bunch of other living things too) if we don't deal with it.
I really struggle to think of a bigger picture than an inhabitable planet. Other than deniers who cling to their precious 15 year argument, it really is not an issue of if anymore, merely of when. I dunno, I figured if there was one thing we could unite around, it would be this.
Which ones?
Obviously primarily people in the industrialized world, the per capita energy consumption is wildly imbalanced. But I suspect you already knew that, hence the question. Again, I can only be responsible for me. I doubt my laptop and vacuum cleaner are too much of a drain.
Still, look at how vitriolic people here get at even the suggestion that we may have to make some alterations to our lifestyles, particularly here in the west. There seems to be some kind of misapprehension that the earth was put here for our convenience, a notion we will be disabused of in no uncertain terms.
|
On September 30 2013 08:47 zdfgucker wrote:
Thanks for proving what I wrote earlier. You have no idea what you're talking about. Come to rural China, rural India and see what it's like. All in all you're some armchair "genius" that has solutions for everything.
Of course it's not viable if you think about the big picture. But for THEM it's all they have. Even if some clown from Sweden thinks he knows better and maybe even tried lecturing them, lol.
"Hey, umm. I need you to have less children. Yeah I have no idea how to help you guys, sorry for you being poor. Just have less children, mkay?" Brilliant.
It simply happens to be true that having fewer kids is the surest and fastest way to relieving poverty.
Look at this chart and you see that the poorest parts of the world tend to have the highest fertility rates, and vice versa. As an example, the fertility rate of the United States is 2.05; the fertility rate of Niger is 7.19.
Why do they continue to have large families that they can't afford in the developing world? It's because contraception isn't as widespread and tradition has greater sway.
Science gave us effective contraception and pulled the rug from tradition. What science did for family planning was probably more important than even its other gifts like the creation of the smallpox vaccine and the invention of the transistor.
And yet here we are in a thread where half the posters would rather trust "rich people" than the consensus of the scientific community.
|
Just to be sure. The imbalance of energy power is the argument why you think we should lower the population? Am i getting that right?
|
On October 01 2013 02:12 Nachtwind wrote:
Just to be sure. The imbalance of energy power is the argument why you think we should lower the population? Am i getting that right?
Well yes and no. Regardless of demographic changes, we are going to have to make changes to our lifestyles, assuming no technological miracles come along.
As for the problem of population growth itself, every major period of scientific breakthrough in human history had been marked by an abundance of resources, making it possible to focus on other endeavors than finding food for the day. The black plague was followed by the renaissance.
Also, study after study shows the same thing, the key to fighting poverty is the empowerment of women, specifically freeing them from continuous child-bearing and allowing them to control when and if they have children. Anywhere this has been tried it has worked, without fail. It pertains to global warming in that we need fewer consumers as people will be highly opposed to any major changes in lifestyle. If we can't make individuals consume less, we need less individuals, pretty straightforward. It is also an issue about the betterment of the species, about trying to lift people out of poverty and misery, thus creating more educated people, people who will understand and take an interest in combating problems larger than those of themselves and their immediate family. Such as global warming.
|
On October 01 2013 02:24 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 02:12 Nachtwind wrote:
Just to be sure. The imbalance of energy power is the argument why you think we should lower the population? Am i getting that right? Well yes and no. Regardless of demographic changes, we are going to have to make changes to our lifestyles, assuming no technological miracles come along. As for the problem of population growth itself, every major period of scientific breakthrough in human history had been marked by an abundance of resources, making it possible to focus on other endeavors than finding food for the day. The black plague was followed by the renaissance. Also, study after study shows the same thing, the key to fighting poverty is the empowerment of women, specifically freeing them from continuous child-bearing and allowing them to control when and if they have children. Anywhere this has been tried it has worked, without fail. It pertains to global warming in that we need fewer consumers as people will be highly opposed to any major changes in lifestyle. If we can't make individuals consume less, we need less individuals, pretty straightforward. It is also an issue about the betterment of the species, about trying to lift people out of poverty and misery, thus creating more educated people, people who will understand and take an interest in combating problems larger than those of themselves and their immediate family. Such as global warming.
Not disagree with your opinion about feminism and the results. But your joining of arguments isn´t my world view. While sure education is a problem you´re literally saying that we now not have enough smart people to solve this problem.
My look is that, that the economy is the problem. Free economy to be clear. They will only solve problems when they are there aka they don´t make money anymore. Major parts of our science is in the hand of the economy. You say educated people will take interest in combating problems. Our western world have those educated people. We have the personal we need. But not the payment they need.
And that´s not a problem of third world countries or their education systems or their population regulations.
|
On October 01 2013 02:33 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 02:24 Squat wrote:On October 01 2013 02:12 Nachtwind wrote:
Just to be sure. The imbalance of energy power is the argument why you think we should lower the population? Am i getting that right? Well yes and no. Regardless of demographic changes, we are going to have to make changes to our lifestyles, assuming no technological miracles come along. As for the problem of population growth itself, every major period of scientific breakthrough in human history had been marked by an abundance of resources, making it possible to focus on other endeavors than finding food for the day. The black plague was followed by the renaissance. Also, study after study shows the same thing, the key to fighting poverty is the empowerment of women, specifically freeing them from continuous child-bearing and allowing them to control when and if they have children. Anywhere this has been tried it has worked, without fail. It pertains to global warming in that we need fewer consumers as people will be highly opposed to any major changes in lifestyle. If we can't make individuals consume less, we need less individuals, pretty straightforward. It is also an issue about the betterment of the species, about trying to lift people out of poverty and misery, thus creating more educated people, people who will understand and take an interest in combating problems larger than those of themselves and their immediate family. Such as global warming. Not disagree with your opinion about feminism and the results. But your joining of arguments isn´t my world view. While sure education is a problem you´re literally saying that we now not have enough smart people to solve this problem. My look is that, that the economy is the problem. Free economy to be clear. They will only solve problems when they are there aka they don´t make money anymore. Major parts of our science is in the hand of the economy. You say educated people will take interest in combating problems. Our western world have those educated people. We have the personal we need. But not the payment they need. And that´s not a problem of third world countries or their education systems or their population regulations.
Not sure what the point was here. We need more smart people, yes. Though smart is a bit of a misnomer. Knowledgeable might be a better word. The problem is not lack of intelligence, it is lack of knowledge, i.e. ignorance.
The money invested is directly proportional to the amount of powerful people with a vested interest in solving an issue. With global warming, we pretty much need everyone on board, hence the difficulty of the problem.
|
On October 01 2013 02:40 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 02:33 Nachtwind wrote:On October 01 2013 02:24 Squat wrote:On October 01 2013 02:12 Nachtwind wrote:
Just to be sure. The imbalance of energy power is the argument why you think we should lower the population? Am i getting that right? Well yes and no. Regardless of demographic changes, we are going to have to make changes to our lifestyles, assuming no technological miracles come along. As for the problem of population growth itself, every major period of scientific breakthrough in human history had been marked by an abundance of resources, making it possible to focus on other endeavors than finding food for the day. The black plague was followed by the renaissance. Also, study after study shows the same thing, the key to fighting poverty is the empowerment of women, specifically freeing them from continuous child-bearing and allowing them to control when and if they have children. Anywhere this has been tried it has worked, without fail. It pertains to global warming in that we need fewer consumers as people will be highly opposed to any major changes in lifestyle. If we can't make individuals consume less, we need less individuals, pretty straightforward. It is also an issue about the betterment of the species, about trying to lift people out of poverty and misery, thus creating more educated people, people who will understand and take an interest in combating problems larger than those of themselves and their immediate family. Such as global warming. Not disagree with your opinion about feminism and the results. But your joining of arguments isn´t my world view. While sure education is a problem you´re literally saying that we now not have enough smart people to solve this problem. My look is that, that the economy is the problem. Free economy to be clear. They will only solve problems when they are there aka they don´t make money anymore. Major parts of our science is in the hand of the economy. You say educated people will take interest in combating problems. Our western world have those educated people. We have the personal we need. But not the payment they need. And that´s not a problem of third world countries or their education systems or their population regulations. Not sure what the point was here. We need more smart people, yes. Though smart is a bit of a misnomer. Knowledgeable might be a better word. The problem is not lack of intelligence, it is lack of knowledge, i.e. ignorance. The money invested is directly proportional to the amount of powerful people with a vested interest in solving an issue. With global warming, we pretty much need everyone on board, hence the difficulty of the problem.
When our people are ignorant already with the best educations in the world (aka western world) why do you think population regulation would solve that? Because you raise now more educated ignorant people?
Where does those ignorance in our western world come from?
And why do you think we now don´t have all powerhouse investors in the western world developing technologies left and right? Because we lack in population regulation systems?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yXqPawV.jpg)
