So in other words, Global Warming means ... nothing

[Alle_Gory]

Welfare horror prevents us from having mass infanticide like China has!

The birthrate in north America is just below replacement levels. That means if we were to completely stop immigration, the population is projected to decline if we were to depend on people having kids.

What is this nonsense about infanticide, we have a baby shortage.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/07/birthrate-declines-for-american-teens/

America is currently growing through immigration, Canada as well.

Look a little further and you'll realize the current attempts at population control caused a lot more horror then your little horror stories about "welfare moms".

Population control is another issue altogether. I don't completely disagree but this has nothing to do with infanticide.

 

[Rogue]

ArcBound:
Thanks Rogue for actually putting up a website or any sort of information, I'm going to be reading through it. Do you have any specific articles that helped you out?

Your welcome.

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_human_induced_climate_change.html

And how about the article I posted from WSJ pointing out some flaws of the IPCC reports. It's only one of many articles pointing out IPCC flaws. What did you think of that? Even realclimate.org advocates reading the IPCC reports as part of the "start here" area.

There are uncertainties in the forecast models of future projections. To my understanding, the primary difficulty in the IPCC was ironing out how uncertainties are communicated between scientists because different scientific communities have different approaches. One thing to bear in mind is that reaching a consensus on climate change doesn't mean that every scientist agreed with every detail—"The first type of consensus is sought among the scientists writing the report. In this case, consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with every single aspect of the report - a clearly unrealistic aim. It is well understood that science is not something to be decided by voting, but by logical reasoning. The core, then, of scientific consensus among IPCC scientists is that they agree that the report is of the highest scientific integrity and reflects the state of knowledge fairly and adequately. Points of dispute in the science of climate change are usually resolved either by developing appropriate intervals of uncertainty around certain projections or by crafting language that reflects the different viewpoints of experts within the scientific community and the reasons that the differences exist (source)."

(Can you repost a link to the WSJ article? Maybe my brain isn't functioning right now but I can't find the link in this thread.)

 

[JustLurk]

The birthrate in north America is just below replacement levels.

That I did not know, and I accept responsibility for not having considered the intricacies of that data before making assumptions. Either way, my second point will explain that away.

What is this nonsense about infanticide, we have a baby shortage.

I was being sarcastic.

That means if we were to completely stop immigration, the population is projected to decline if we were to depend on people having kids.

Oh, no, dude. It's all good. We're going to pay billions of dollars for a huge ****ing fence that 2 women in a video climbed over in about 8 seconds. No more mexicans, nooo. Of course we do have to, you know, pay the mexicans to build it in the first place LMAO. But it's all goodie as long as the politicians keep their jobs and nobody really goes on a fender bender. I mean, c'mon! We can't just keep pouring all your money into giant swimming pools, lol, and it makes us look like we're hardliners on immigration! :rockon:

Population control is another issue altogether. I don't completely disagree but this has nothing to do with infanticide.

Unfortunately, the issues tend to merge in weird ways. There has indeed been some associations between population control people and certain members of government. No link provided though, so you'll have to look up that yourself before trusting me.

 

[ArcBound]

(Can you repost a link to the WSJ article? Maybe my brain isn't functioning right now but I can't find the link in this thread.)

I believe its on the second page of this thread towards the bottom.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Oh, no, dude. It's all good. We're going to pay billions of dollars for a huge ****ing fence that 2 women in a video climbed over in about 8 seconds. No more mexicans, nooo. Of course we do have to, you know, pay the mexicans to build it in the first place LMAO. But it's all goodie as long as the politicians keep their jobs and nobody really goes on a fender bender. I mean, c'mon! We can't just keep pouring all your money into giant swimming pools, lol, and it makes us look like we're hardliners on immigration! :rockon:

My argument was not about immigration policy. My argument was about where the statistics are coming from for population growth.

Who are you talking to?

Unfortunately, the issues tend to merge in weird ways. There has indeed been some associations between population control people and certain members of government. No link provided though, so you'll have to look up that yourself before trusting me.

What?

We're talking about global warming in this thread. This doesn't seem to be relevant.

 

[JustLurk]

My argument was not about immigration policy. My argument was about where the statistics are coming from for population growth.

Who are you talking to?



What?

We're talking about global warming in this thread. This doesn't seem to be relevant.

You mentioned immigration in relation to global population and North American population. I mentioned in tangent to this thread. Global warming is unproven. End.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Global warming is unproven. End.

I see. So immigration = bad. Therefore global warming doesn't exist.

Good logic.

 

[JustLurk]

I see. So immigration = bad. Therefore global warming doesn't exist.

Good logic.

Either I am having a problem communicating sarcasm over the internet of you lack a funny bone.

 

[Quiksilver]

Immigration isn't bad per se... However if overpopulation is a more concerning issue than potential lost economic benefits of more immigration, then the logical solution is to crack down on illegal immigration and make legal immigration more difficult.

Since overpopulation is also a concern for most who believe we are changing the climate, I just want it known that worldwide population growth is not the source of their perceived problem. That it is only burgeoning population in a select few countries that accounts for this 'overpopulation'.

Turkey, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and a swathe of nations in central Africa. That is where almost all of the 'overpopulation' is coming from. Therefore to discuss worldwide overpopulation without including any of those nations into the discussion is merely adding noise, unless you are talking about immigration.

1. Man-made climate change vs. natural climate change, irrespective of human population.

2. Growing population in these areas: Turkey, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and central Africa. Almost everywhere else has a stable or declining population, in some cases rapidly declining when corrected for immigration(China, Japan, Europe).

3. Immigration policy.

Those are the main three topics in this area that anyone can be concerned with.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Either I am having a problem communicating sarcasm over the internet of you lack a funny bone.

I think it's the first one. Sarcasm is hard to do especially over text. If you were sarcastic then make it more obvious.

 

[Rogue]

ArcBound:
And how about the article I posted from WSJ pointing out some flaws of the IPCC reports. It's only one of many articles pointing out IPCC flaws. What did you think of that?

In response to the Wall Street Journal article, one thing to bear in mind is that perfectly legitimate scientific fields emerge from uncertainty. The theory of evolution, for example, took 50 years after Darwin for the balance in scientific debate to shift from skepticism to consensus over the central tenant (climate change research is only a few decades young), and even today there is no consensus over mechanism—no consensus in adaptive radiation, allopatric speciation, assortative mating, adaptation and exaptation, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Yet, evolution has more empirical support than any other scientific field and is championed as the greatest accomplishment of science.

Richard Lindzen is a climate scientist within the 3% of dissenting climate scientists but the other 97% of climate scientists can point towards rebuttals of his points in peer-review journals. This back-and-forth tennis game of point, counter-point, counter-counter-point is a normal part of scientific debate, and brutal assessments are commonplace. In the eloquent words of the New York Times, it's “the kind scholars regularly hurl at their polemical opponents. It’s part of the game... [W]hen academics assess one another they routinely say things like, ‘Professor A obviously has not read the primary sources’; ‘Professor B draws conclusions the evidence does not support’; ‘Professor C engages in fanciful speculations and then pretends to build a solid case; he’s just making it up’; ‘Professor D does not acknowledge that he stole his argument from Professor E who was his teacher (or his student).’ The scholars who are the objects of these strictures do not seem to suffer much on account of them, in part because they can almost always point to positive reviews on the other side, in part because harsh and even scabrous judgments are understood to be more or less par for the course.”

 

[JustLurk]

I think it's the first one. Sarcasm is hard to do especially over text. If you were sarcastic then make it more obvious.

Perhaps not everyone appreciates subtlety.
@thread: We're arguing, scientists are arguing, and it's not really going anywhere fast.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Perhaps not everyone appreciates subtlety.
@thread: We're arguing, scientists are arguing, and it's not really going anywhere fast.

I disagree. This has led to the publicity of various kinds of "green" alternatives to what we currently consume. More efficient batteries, algae and other biomass fuels, the discussion about nuclear energy again... etc.

 

[synergy1]

I disagree. This has led to the publicity of various kinds of "green" alternatives to what we currently consume. More efficient batteries, algae and other biomass fuels, the discussion about nuclear energy again... etc.

All of that discussion was predicated on a very fine point ; even IF we were responsible for global warming, we will not and can not take steps to change how we currently do things. While its one thing to preach change, to be an agent for change is something else entirely. No one is stepping up to the plate to offer anything less than lip service. We still feel entitled to our cheap energy , and our long commutes in SUVs. Look around America, all our cars are still monsters. Go to eastern europe where their biggest car is a two door Maruti.

I don't know if global warming is true. At the very worst, it is and we have to stop using hydrocarbons as a source of energy. Well there goes 40% of our electric grid, our heavy transport, and our commutes. The only way that scenario plays out is people live in the dark, starve and scrap their cars. Part of being a DJ is asking yourself cold, honest questions : Could society live without its current energy infrastructure in place? I do not believe so

 

[Drdeee]

Well, we can pay carbon tax to Mr Banker and curb our population numbers via one child policy. Back in the day they used to sacrifice a virgin to volcano to stop it from erupting, method must work since look at us here living and prospering.

I suggest instead of tax and population control let's throw Al Gore, George Soros, and Rockefellers into a real volcano, it will apeace the Gods of fear mongering and the Gods of bull sh*t, and I'm sure we'll be just fine.

 

[Alle_Gory]

The Earth experienced climate change LONG before humans arrived on the scene.

I agree, but what caused it then and what's causing it now? Is it the same cause?

It's not enough to say that it's a natural occurrence because now there are enough of us humans to make a difference on the planet. We have the power to nuke the earth into oblivion how many times over? That's just one example of how significant we have become in the grand scheme of things. We have the power to change the earth, good or bad.

The Earth will continue to go through cycles of ice-ages and warming periods with or without people. Will we influence it? Probably, but that doesn't mean it wasn't going to occur in the first place.

We don't know that. And I agree, if it gets bad enough we are the ones that won't survive the changes. The planet will be fine with or without us eventually.

 

[EA Gold]

Scientists abandoning their morals and publishing false studies on warming for trillions of dollars from the world elite.

You be the judge.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=116657

http://www.dailytech.com/Independen...ence+NASA+Climate+Scientists/article11963.htm

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44450

http://capitolcommentary.com/2010/1...ming-a-fraud-quits-american-physical-society/

http://www.dailytech.com/Top+Physic...ouncing+Global+Warming+Fraud/article19879.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12219472

http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7670

 

[Quiksilver]

This is because the average temperature of the earth over the past 1,000,000 years is much cooler than it is today.

We are on the brink (within 1,000 - 5,000 years) of another LONG 'ice age'. One that lasts tens of thousands of years.

Vostok Ice Core Data from Antarctica

Assuming anthropogenic climate change is real and unadaptable at current rates:

We would have to cut our use of fossil fuels by over 90% in order to appease the climate change alarmists. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/21/europe-carbon-emissions

Enjoy living in shanty town slums and riding donkeys between your hovel and your workplace, because that is the world they unknowingly want to take us back to at the moment.

Without a viable alternative, that is the route they want to take us. All trucks would stop running, all planes would stop flying, all ships would stop traveling, all cars would stop, all cities would empty ... the only ones with access would be the aristocracy and plutocracy that would form during the steep decline in our use of hydrocarbons and our way of life.

At least those island nations would still be above water, right? Those poor Maldives...

If you're serious about tackling climate change, then focus on a viable alternative to fossil fuels (one that can power trucks, cars, planes and ships) or else the above will occur if you get your way (drastic reduction in use of fossil fuels).

Don't get me started on wind and solar.

Wind is unreliable unless it's out in the desert or on the high seas, and then almost all of the generated power is lost by the time it reaches anywhere its needed.

Solar requires batteries to store electricity. Do you know how much energy goes in to creating a battery? The minerals have to be mined out of the earth then formed into something useful in a factory before it ever gets to be used on a solar panel. Until the power generated by a solar panel can be used to mine more battery minerals (zinc, calcium, lead acid, lithium, etc) then it is just a pipe dream.

It may be useful right now for individuals to use solar panels to save on the electric bill, however it's self-deception to think that you're cutting down on your use of hydrocarbons by using panels since they're currently manufactured with fossil fuels and mining is one of the most fossil-fuel intensive industries.

 

[vlf445]

Bottom Line:

The Earth experienced climate change LONG before humans arrived on the scene.

From nasty ice-ages to very hot tropical weather. I find it ironic that the "greenies" feel the need to panic and keep the Earth from changing AT ALL when they cannot even look at the cycels of Earth from the perspective of time.

The Earth will continue to go through cycles of ice-ages and warming periods with or without people. Will we influence it? Probably, but that doesn't mean it wasn't going to occur in the first place.

THIS!!!!

Except evidence demonstrating that Earth has been doing this since long before us also shows that we are at a point in the cycle where the climate should NATURALLY BE COOLING. Instead, it is heating, and the rate at which this is happening is unprecedented in geologic history...correlated with the tons of the C02 we have emitted, now around 385ppm. That's a staggering increase up from the near 300ppm levels of the 1950's.

It is well known among the scientific community that the earth experiences these climate cycles. It's being studied so heavily because due to the evidence presented, it has been concluded by an overwhelming majority of scientists that there are in fact major correlations between human activity and the unprecedented speed at which the climate is changing.

The universe is an delicate balance, and had it not been for insanely minute discrepancies in the beginning of it, matter may not have existed. If there was slightly more mass in the universe than there is, the gravitational pull would cause it to collapse in itself. You really don't think it's possible that by changing the molecular makeup of our very delicate atmosphere there will be some effect??


Also, for interesting reading.....there's an interesting theory on METHANE being the primary cause of global warming, starting way back with rice paddies in the far east (methane is created by decay underwater, this happens a LOT in rice paddies). Just an interesting idea backed with evidence.

 

[synergy1]

Looks like many are abandoning CO2 targets. (http://www.energytribune.com/articl...o-Cancun-CO2-goals-says-IEA-chief-economist-). Shown via actions rather than words, countries are unwilling to hamstring their respective economies to reduce CO2 emission outputs. Who could blame them? How would the US react if an outside source required a contraction of our economy via reduced combustion of fossil fuels ( transpiration etc). Not very well. This is why a carbon tax will fail, and this is why its all a big waste of time - a red herring.

A rather new development is the natural gas reserves , which we have plenty of ; an order of magnitude on a per barrel of oil scale of SA, and Venezuela's oil reserves combined. Thats huge! Natural gas also combusts cleaner than coal, and contributes a significant portion of our grids electricity. Rather than focusing eliminating those evil carbons, implement a better nuclear policy coupled with cheap domestic natural gas, and you might be onto a plausible long term solution.

http://www.robertbryce.com/node/397

I was neg repped a few months back on a wind power thread, citing that its not really comparable on an energy density level to other sources. its also expensive. Looks like I was right.

The former corporate raider, who in 2008 ordered $2 billion worth of wind turbines from General Electric, explained that growth in the domestic wind energy industry "just isn't gonna happen" if natural-gas prices remain depressed.

Aside from algae, "renewable energy" aught to be an afterthought. its a massive waste of taxpayer money for something that isn't any better. Now only if we can eliminate corn ethanol, we might be headed in the right direction.