1000 Scientists Dissent over man Made Global Warming Claims

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Global Communism is coming. It may not happen tomorrow, but it's coming. The UN has their "Agenda 21" that will eliminate personal freedoms of people around the world...

Absolutely! What could be worse than the prospect of countries actually cooperating to solve common problems? Much better they resort to the old tried-and-true ways: war, or ignoring problems until they become insurmountable.

From each according to their ability to each according to their needs, eh comrade?

So do you object to international negotiation instead of conflict as a general principle, or only in this specific instance? When the US negotiated an agreement with Canada to curb acid rain, was that "communism" or was that two countries recognizing that pollutants don't respect national boundaries?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

So do you object to international negotiation instead of conflict as a general principle, or only in this specific instance?

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Our worrying about CO2 levels per se is absurd. If we addressed the underlying problems that result in increased CO2 (say population), CO2 would take care of itself.

Thus any focus on climate change that distracts us from figuring how to achieve a sustainable population (like that is going to happen) is an exercise in futility.

Sometimes you don't have the luxury of taking care of one problem at a time. If you're half-way across a train trestle and you see the train coming, the fact that you have cancer won't change the fact that you have to get off the trestle before the train gets there. Of course population is an issue, you yourself expressed skepticism about reducing population size. The most effective tool we may have to do that is economic development, due to a phenomena called "demographic transition", which is the easily observed correlation between economic wealth and reduced population growth rates. As societies and individuals become better off economically, they tend to reduce the number of children they have. In the developing world children are cheap labor for the family farm, and your retirement plan, and you better have a bunch of kids because some will die of disease and most won't make much money, so you better have a lot of surviving kids to take care of you when you get too old and frail to work. In the developed world we have pension plans, social security, etc, and on the other hand kids cost a lot to raise and educate, so they become a net financial liability (they do have other things going for them fortunately). As a result, people voluntarily reduce the number of kids they have, to the point where several countries now have net negative population growth (discounting immigration). If you really want a lower population, you should support economic development in the so-called 3rd world countries. Of course the process takes time, a few generations at least, for cultural attitude about family size to change.

However, if that economic development means that people in developing countries increase oil consumption and CO2 output to match our American prodigious levels, we will still have a huge problem. CO2 output will just be a part of it, all those people will be competing with us for oil and other resources, driving up prices. Better for us if we can reduce our own dependence on fossil fuels, so we won't have to compete to buy an ever scarcer and more expensive resource. Even better if developing countries could by-pass dirty fossil fuel based technologies, and go straight to energy efficient technologies. It could be in our long-term interests to help them do that, even if it costs us up front.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

Our worrying about CO2 levels per se is absurd. If we addressed the underlying problems that result in increased CO2 (say population), CO2 would take care of itself.

Thus any focus on climate change that distracts us from figuring how to achieve a sustainable population (like that is going to happen) is an exercise in futility.

Sometimes you don't have the luxury of taking care of one problem at a time. If you're half-way across a train trestle and you see the train coming, the fact that you have cancer won't change the fact that you have to get off the trestle before the train gets there.

Quote

The flaw with that argument is one of immediacy. The idea that CO2 concentration is, in and of itself, a primary factor in the control of climate is somewhere between questionable and absurd. In the grand scheme of things, CO2 levels are a self-correcting problem, and the people who are using it as a flashpoint issue are charlatans, idiots or both. Al Gore is both.

Of course population is an issue, you yourself expressed skepticism about reducing population size. The most effective tool we may have to do that is economic development, due to a phenomena called "demographic transition", which is the easily observed correlation between economic wealth and reduced population growth rates. As societies and individuals become better off economically, they tend to reduce the number of children they have. In the developing world children are cheap labor for the family farm, and your retirement plan, and you better have a bunch of kids because some will die of disease and most won't make much money, so you better have a lot of surviving kids to take care of you when you get too old and frail to work. In the developed world we have pension plans, social security, etc, and on the other hand kids cost a lot to raise and educate, so they become a net financial liability (they do have other things going for them fortunately). As a result, people voluntarily reduce the number of kids they have, to the point where several countries now have net negative population growth (discounting immigration). If you really want a lower population, you should support economic development in the so-called 3rd world countries. Of course the process takes time, a few generations at least, for cultural attitude about family size to change.

However, if that economic development means that people in developing countries increase oil consumption and CO2 output to match our American prodigious levels, we will still have a huge problem. CO2 output will just be a part of it, all those people will be competing with us for oil and other resources, driving up prices. Better for us if we can reduce our own dependence on fossil fuels, so we won't have to compete to buy an ever scarcer and more expensive resource. Even better if developing countries could by-pass dirty fossil fuel based technologies, and go straight to energy efficient technologies. It could be in our long-term interests to help them do that, even if it costs us up front.

Don

Given that the bulk of humanity is breeding like rats, the resources do not exist to provide sufficient prosperity to stem population growth as a function of wealth.

All that has to happen for our "carbon footprint" to come into accord with the rest of the world is for the US Dollar to revert to its inherent value (zero). We will then go from using 20 million barrels a day to 4.7 million barrels a day - if we are lucky. There is a strong chance that people using currency that retains value will be able to buy US produced oil that WE can no longer afford. Witness the food produced in 1923 Germany that was purchased by foreigners, because people paid in Reichsmarks were outbid by anyone paid in another currency.

All this nonsense regarding the CO2 boogey man is an exercise in stupidity and an excuse for swindlers to fleece the credulous.

Given the truly idiotic things people are given to espouse, it is hardly surprising that the "climate change" scam is so popular.


BSBD,

Winsor

[brenthutch 444]

Got your warmest year ever right here!

"the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.

That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz182e9jCzu

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html

[brenthutch 444]

I think that kallend has gotten himself up to speed, he was conspicuously absent on the last thread I started on this topic.