For the Climate Change Nazis
-
Poor people find the £10 a month hard to find, so they turn the heating down, move into one room in their flats. The incidence of respiratory diseases is increasing and is costing our NHS a lot of money. Green policies are killing people. Right now. In europe. All to save some other people who *might* be affected in 50 years. Its a disgrace. A foul and nasty disgrace.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Green policies are killing people. Right now. In europe.
According to the following taxes on the fuel bill are 15%. All taxes. Five reasons why energy bills are so high – and still rising | The big energy debate | The Guardian[^] Even presuming that that 15% could be entirely eliminated as per your contention it would still leave a heating bill (where 15% is 110) of 623 and, based on history, that would continue to go up. So one can certainly presume that if that extra 110 now, then in a couple of years 50 would still be a problem. Following is more recent and suggests that the total cost is only about 30 more than in 2009. Infographic: Bills, prices and profits | Ofgem[^] Additionally it seems unlikely, per one google link that that extra 110 would be the difference between heating one room in a house and the entire house. Cold homes caused 9,000 deaths last winter, study suggests - BBC News[^] Also the above does not fit the following Fuel poverty: An anatomy of a cold home - BBC News[^] Per the above "Hayley estimates they spend £15 to £20 on electricity and £15 on gas per week....They can't afford to keep the heating on during the night" So at 15 per week even it went to 100 per week, to warm it at night, most of that would still not be taxes. And if 15 is a problem then a percentage of that is unlikely to be a differentiater. If anything it seems likely that if people are dying from the cold it is due to the total energy costs and not the taxes on those.
-
Global birth rate is down to 2.4 kids per family. That is maintenance levels. In 20 years the worlds population will decline. By the way, there is 5 times the mass of termites on earth than people. People are really no more over populated than many other species.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Global birth rate is down to 2.4 kids per family. That is maintenance levels.
Again - that is not the same as maintenance. The global population is going up and it will continue to go up for some time. It is possible that at some point it will actually reach the level that you are claiming it is already at but that has not happened yet.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Why are you so childish?
Why are you so childish? :laugh: But seriously, you're telling me that you can say with 100% accuracy what will happen in 5 or 10 years time? The only fact on the table is that our population is approximately 8 times more now than it was 100 years ago and it's still increasing. Other than that, you're in the realm of guesswork.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
But no, Brent has his own beliefs and will ignore all facts and logic, to defend them, including snide patronism. You really are a child you know. Grow up.
For facts, get outside and take a look yourself at what's going on. The real world is very different to what's on the internet.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
But seriously, you're telling me that you can say with 100% accuracy what will happen in 5 or 10 years time? The only fact on the table is that our population is approximately 8 times more now than it was 100 years ago and it's still increasing. Other than that, you're in the realm of guesswork.
Based on that one would not discuss anything because nothing is known. But the trend line that his statistics actually represent suggest that that population of the world will reach a plateau sometime in the future. But his claim that it has reached it already is incorrect.
-
The same reason you ignore the fact that the global population is still rising fast.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
The same reason you ignore the fact that the global population is still rising fast.
Not sure what that means. The rate is rather low and it has been decreasing for a very long time (it is not zero as he claimed.) But I would certainly not claim that it is "fast". Scroll down to the "Growth rate" graph. World Population Clock: 7.6 Billion People (2017) - Worldometers[^]
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
You can argue about the interpretation
I doubt any interpretation is needed. The authors themselves, provided an excerpt which indicates that the authors, expect a severe impact. If you have a different interpretation of exactly what I quoted then please provide it.
Who cares how you interpret the effect of 4C of warming, the take home message from this paper is that models run way too hot.
-
Humanity has proven time and again that they don't want to be saved. If/when they have REAL science to support their panic, I'll listen. But the current climate fraud is being propped up by sh|t they simply made up.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013You're such an asshole
-
How many die just because of that tax? And pollution kills more people.
Yes, there are lots of causes of death. The green energy levies are just one of them.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Global birth rate is down to 2.4 kids per family. That is maintenance levels.
Again - that is not the same as maintenance. The global population is going up and it will continue to go up for some time. It is possible that at some point it will actually reach the level that you are claiming it is already at but that has not happened yet.
Maintenance isnt the same as maintenance? WTF? Are you mad?
jschell wrote:
you are claiming it is already at but that has not happened yet
Are you stupid? I stated that todays low birth rate will cause the population to level of in 20 or 30 years, ie, when THSOE kids become parents.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Green policies are killing people. Right now. In europe.
According to the following taxes on the fuel bill are 15%. All taxes. Five reasons why energy bills are so high – and still rising | The big energy debate | The Guardian[^] Even presuming that that 15% could be entirely eliminated as per your contention it would still leave a heating bill (where 15% is 110) of 623 and, based on history, that would continue to go up. So one can certainly presume that if that extra 110 now, then in a couple of years 50 would still be a problem. Following is more recent and suggests that the total cost is only about 30 more than in 2009. Infographic: Bills, prices and profits | Ofgem[^] Additionally it seems unlikely, per one google link that that extra 110 would be the difference between heating one room in a house and the entire house. Cold homes caused 9,000 deaths last winter, study suggests - BBC News[^] Also the above does not fit the following Fuel poverty: An anatomy of a cold home - BBC News[^] Per the above "Hayley estimates they spend £15 to £20 on electricity and £15 on gas per week....They can't afford to keep the heating on during the night" So at 15 per week even it went to 100 per week, to warm it at night, most of that would still not be taxes. And if 15 is a problem then a percentage of that is unlikely to be a differentiater. If anything it seems likely that if people are dying from the cold it is due to the total energy costs and not the taxes on those.
the extra cost pushes people over the edge. Dont you understand that? That some people have very little income, and are on a fine edge, and can just afford to live?
-
Brent Jenkins wrote:
But seriously, you're telling me that you can say with 100% accuracy what will happen in 5 or 10 years time? The only fact on the table is that our population is approximately 8 times more now than it was 100 years ago and it's still increasing. Other than that, you're in the realm of guesswork.
Based on that one would not discuss anything because nothing is known. But the trend line that his statistics actually represent suggest that that population of the world will reach a plateau sometime in the future. But his claim that it has reached it already is incorrect.
jschell wrote:
But the trend line that his statistics actually represent suggest that that population of the world will reach a plateau sometime in the future. But his claim that it has reached it already is incorrect.
Ah, you see the point then. I'll guarantee you two things: 1. The world population will decline at some point. 2. Nobody has any idea when that will happen or what the total population will reach before that point. "Suggests" is the keyword. It's a guess, doesn't mean it'll be any more accurate than my or your guesses. Take it with a pinch of salt.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
-
Oh, so you have moved the argument from what people eat to all animals? The earth is 25% greener since 1980 due to CO2. That is what the animals will eat.
Ok, you asked what a 2 degree C temperature change effects.. here you go for starters: [Marine problems: climate change | WWF](http://wwf.panda.org/about\_our\_earth/blue\_planet/problems/climate\_change/) [Global Warming Effects on Salt Water Species](http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/salt-water-species.html) [Impacts of Climate Change on Marine Organisms and Ecosystems](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209011816) [Insects feel the heat: scientists reveal rise in temperature affects ability to reproduce](https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/insects-effected-by-rise-in-temperature-1.672122) This is the natural food chain - without these creatures, we (and lots of other larger animals) don't eat. It's all well documented.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
-
How old are you?
Mid 40's.. old enough to not take some things seriously, be cynical about most stuff and trust my instincts and experience over other people's vague opinions.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
-
Ok, you asked what a 2 degree C temperature change effects.. here you go for starters: [Marine problems: climate change | WWF](http://wwf.panda.org/about\_our\_earth/blue\_planet/problems/climate\_change/) [Global Warming Effects on Salt Water Species](http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/salt-water-species.html) [Impacts of Climate Change on Marine Organisms and Ecosystems](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209011816) [Insects feel the heat: scientists reveal rise in temperature affects ability to reproduce](https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/insects-effected-by-rise-in-temperature-1.672122) This is the natural food chain - without these creatures, we (and lots of other larger animals) don't eat. It's all well documented.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
Supposition, over simplification, ignorance of the facts, and fear mongering. That is what your links contain. A few points: 1) Coral bleaching. This is due to many factors, land run off of agricultural/industrial waste. Water level falling (as happens to the GBR in an el nino), rapid rise and fall in temperatures, and predation. 2) What is 'optimal'? So what if species move to higher latitudes? Why is that a bad thing? 3) The planet earth has consistently had an average temperature 7C higher than today, yet life evolved quite happily. Why is a rise of 2C necessarily bad?
-
Mid 40's.. old enough to not take some things seriously, be cynical about most stuff and trust my instincts and experience over other people's vague opinions.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
I find it surprising then that you cant not differentiate between the past, and its effect on today, and today, and its effect on tomorrow. Todays birth rate is the population in 30 years, since that is when those kids grow up and have families. With the birth rate at 2.4 globally, down from 7 30 years ago, the result is obvious.
-
I find it surprising then that you cant not differentiate between the past, and its effect on today, and today, and its effect on tomorrow. Todays birth rate is the population in 30 years, since that is when those kids grow up and have families. With the birth rate at 2.4 globally, down from 7 30 years ago, the result is obvious.
I find it surprising that you think what's happening today is what will happen tomorrow. How do you know that in 5 or 10 years time, young adults won't be back having large families again?
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
-
Supposition, over simplification, ignorance of the facts, and fear mongering. That is what your links contain. A few points: 1) Coral bleaching. This is due to many factors, land run off of agricultural/industrial waste. Water level falling (as happens to the GBR in an el nino), rapid rise and fall in temperatures, and predation. 2) What is 'optimal'? So what if species move to higher latitudes? Why is that a bad thing? 3) The planet earth has consistently had an average temperature 7C higher than today, yet life evolved quite happily. Why is a rise of 2C necessarily bad?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Supposition, over simplification, ignorance of the facts, and fear mongering.
Ah, so scientific evidence doesn't suit your opinion.. I'll offer you this option then: get out into the countryside (in various countries) and take a look for yourself. If you haven't spent a lifetime out there, you probably won't notice anything, but that doesn't mean that it's not happening.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
-
I find it surprising that you think what's happening today is what will happen tomorrow. How do you know that in 5 or 10 years time, young adults won't be back having large families again?
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
Because the factors behind the long term decline in birth rates arent going to change. What do you think they are?
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Supposition, over simplification, ignorance of the facts, and fear mongering.
Ah, so scientific evidence doesn't suit your opinion.. I'll offer you this option then: get out into the countryside (in various countries) and take a look for yourself. If you haven't spent a lifetime out there, you probably won't notice anything, but that doesn't mean that it's not happening.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
Brent Jenkins wrote:
Ah, so scientific evidence
I just gave it to you. Those are the reasons coral bleaches. Oh, and the countryside isnt changing. Hasnt done in the 50 years of my life.
-
Maintenance isnt the same as maintenance? WTF? Are you mad?
jschell wrote:
you are claiming it is already at but that has not happened yet
Are you stupid? I stated that todays low birth rate will cause the population to level of in 20 or 30 years, ie, when THSOE kids become parents.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Maintenance isnt the same as maintenance?
Maintenance level is not based solely on the birth rate. The impact of the birth rate on the maintenance level varies by country and region. Until the maintenance level, not the birth rate, of the entire world reaches a stage of equilibrium then the population of the world will continue to rise. That equilibrium does not exist now and will not exist for at least decades.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
I stated that todays low birth rate will cause the population to level of in 20 or 30 years, ie, when THSOE kids become parents.
You said "In 20 years the worlds population will decline." That will not happen in that time period based on current trends. Projection of the World Population by Level of Education - Our World in Data[^] First it must reach equilibrium then there will be a period where it levels off, then presumably after that it will decline. There is no way that will happen in 20 years.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Maintenance isnt the same as maintenance?
Maintenance level is not based solely on the birth rate. The impact of the birth rate on the maintenance level varies by country and region. Until the maintenance level, not the birth rate, of the entire world reaches a stage of equilibrium then the population of the world will continue to rise. That equilibrium does not exist now and will not exist for at least decades.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
I stated that todays low birth rate will cause the population to level of in 20 or 30 years, ie, when THSOE kids become parents.
You said "In 20 years the worlds population will decline." That will not happen in that time period based on current trends. Projection of the World Population by Level of Education - Our World in Data[^] First it must reach equilibrium then there will be a period where it levels off, then presumably after that it will decline. There is no way that will happen in 20 years.
jschell wrote:
The impact of the birth rate on the maintenance level varies by country and region.
Sigh. And 2.4 is the GLOBAL maintenance level. And I said it wil start to level off in 20 to 30 years. Thought about the driving forces behind the massive reduction in birth rate yet?