Governments reject GW as a reality
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You've already decided what you want the answer to be, and you assume that anyone who thinks otherwise is a scam artist.
No, I have already SEEN what the REALITY is. It has been there for at least three or four years now. Its called the complete detachment of rel temperatures from the model predictions. Since those models are built based on the theory of AGW, a departure as dramatic as this reftes the theory. Its clear simple science. The ONLY people with preconceived ideas are the scientists who support AGW and attempt to prove it no, matter what the data says: 1) Satellits dont show warming (despite being validate by sonde readings) so they adjust them. 2) Troposphere not as warm as the theory says it should be, so use wind as a proxy for temp. 3) Surface not as warm as it should be: a) Drop cold stations b) Adjust data c) Calculate the resulting gaps from hot stations, like those near airports and other urban. 4) MWP embarrasing? Eliminate it with a scientifically unsound 'hockey stick' 5) LIA embarrasing? Do the same. 6) When caught out using the now embarrasing hockey stick, claim AGW started 'since 1750'. (Hockey stick had it at 1880) and blame it on the 'industrial revoloution' (IPCC 4AR), Despite the fact that at 1750 the industrial revoloution consisted, globally, of 70 or so Newcomen steam engines. 7) Stopping the publicaiton of sceptical science studies. (Jones Emails) 8) Criminal activity. Jones not complying with an FoI request. (instead asking everyone to delete the data that was requested). 9) Receiving funds from Foundations whose aim is to 'politicise science' (Sorros and Hansen) 10) Intentionally misstating the predicted melting point of glaciers in order to 'make governments sit up and notice'. And if I looked at all my references I could go on and on and on. These are just the highlights that come to mind. Dont tell me about bias and lack of scientific rigour. The AGW world is shot through with the foulest ethical corruption ever seen in the world of science! And by the way I am in favour of environmental programs. And one of the most disturbing aspects of AGW is the money and time that has been wasted on this non issue while other more pressing real environmental issues are not being given sufficient attention.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscrip
fat_boy wrote:
- Satellits dont show warming (despite being validate by sonde readings) so they adjust them. 2) Troposphere not as warm as the theory says it should be, so use wind as a proxy for temp. 3) Surface not as warm as it should be: a) Drop cold stations b) Adjust data c) Calculate the resulting gaps from hot stations, like those near airports and other urban. 4) MWP embarrasing? Eliminate it with a scientifically unsound 'hockey stick' 5) LIA embarrasing? Do the same.
I think we've been through a lot of this. Some of it was likely due to mistakes or researchers taking shortcuts. Some of it was due to a lack of more detailed numbers, or distrust of certain readings. Some of it was sound reasoning, but has been misinterpreted by the public and spun by the other side.
fat_boy wrote:
- When caught out using the now embarrasing hockey stick, claim AGW started 'since 1750'. (Hockey stick had it at 1880) and blame it on the 'industrial revoloution' (IPCC 4AR), Despite the fact that at 1750 the industrial revoloution consisted, globally, of 70 or so Newcomen steam engines. 7) Stopping the publicaiton of sceptical science studies. (Jones Emails) 8) Criminal activity. Jones not complying with an FoI request. (instead asking everyone to delete the data that was requested). 9) Receiving funds from Foundations whose aim is to 'politicise science' (Sorros and Hansen) 10) Intentionally misstating the predicted melting point of glaciers in order to 'make governments sit up and notice'. And if I looked at all my references I could go on and on and on. These are just the highlights that come to mind. Dont tell me about bias and lack of scientific rigour. The AGW world is shot through with the foulest ethical corruption ever seen in the world of science!
And like I said, you're trying to attack the issue by attacking the credibility of the IPCC researchers, as if that was the only study that supports the AGW theory. You think one research group encompasses the entire scientific world, or at least the portion of it on that side of the debate. I guess it's easier to attack a person than an idea.
fat_boy wrote:
And by the way I am in favour of environmental programs. And one of the most disturbing aspects of AGW is the money and time that has been wasted on this non issue while other more pressing real environmental issu
-
fat_boy wrote:
Well, thats a matter of causality. FAct is he was a GW supporter, and while that was trndy gopt elected. Now its not, and he stcuk to heis GW stance, he got sacked.
Do you know anything about the person that replaced him? Do you know its likely the fucking greens will get far more seats at the next election because he was such a tool? You really are an ignorant little fucker.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
You really are an ignorant little f***er.
Wow, who rattled your cage today?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: You really are an ignorant little f***er. Wow, who rattled your cage today?
Oh come on. You know damn well you're acting like a prick because you enjoy getting a rise so there you go. Truth be told I was baiting you with my original reply about Rudd anyway, I knew the assumption you'd draw and I knew you'd jump in without verifying it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
- Satellits dont show warming (despite being validate by sonde readings) so they adjust them. 2) Troposphere not as warm as the theory says it should be, so use wind as a proxy for temp. 3) Surface not as warm as it should be: a) Drop cold stations b) Adjust data c) Calculate the resulting gaps from hot stations, like those near airports and other urban. 4) MWP embarrasing? Eliminate it with a scientifically unsound 'hockey stick' 5) LIA embarrasing? Do the same.
I think we've been through a lot of this. Some of it was likely due to mistakes or researchers taking shortcuts. Some of it was due to a lack of more detailed numbers, or distrust of certain readings. Some of it was sound reasoning, but has been misinterpreted by the public and spun by the other side.
fat_boy wrote:
- When caught out using the now embarrasing hockey stick, claim AGW started 'since 1750'. (Hockey stick had it at 1880) and blame it on the 'industrial revoloution' (IPCC 4AR), Despite the fact that at 1750 the industrial revoloution consisted, globally, of 70 or so Newcomen steam engines. 7) Stopping the publicaiton of sceptical science studies. (Jones Emails) 8) Criminal activity. Jones not complying with an FoI request. (instead asking everyone to delete the data that was requested). 9) Receiving funds from Foundations whose aim is to 'politicise science' (Sorros and Hansen) 10) Intentionally misstating the predicted melting point of glaciers in order to 'make governments sit up and notice'. And if I looked at all my references I could go on and on and on. These are just the highlights that come to mind. Dont tell me about bias and lack of scientific rigour. The AGW world is shot through with the foulest ethical corruption ever seen in the world of science!
And like I said, you're trying to attack the issue by attacking the credibility of the IPCC researchers, as if that was the only study that supports the AGW theory. You think one research group encompasses the entire scientific world, or at least the portion of it on that side of the debate. I guess it's easier to attack a person than an idea.
fat_boy wrote:
And by the way I am in favour of environmental programs. And one of the most disturbing aspects of AGW is the money and time that has been wasted on this non issue while other more pressing real environmental issu
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm not trying to convince you to support the AGW theory, as I'm undecided on it myself. The point is that you can't just decide what the answer is, and then scream at the top of your lungs about only the reports that agree with you. That's not science.
Fair point though I would say that the rhetoric from both sides is almost identical in it's vehemence and denunciation of the other side. There does not appear to be any absolutely compelling evidence from either side and, as someone who has been around the block a few times, I've heard it all before (so to speak) so find it very difficult to take seriously while both sides fight like playground bullies. Everyone is just pointing fingers and throwing meaningless insults around which doesn't help anyone. I'd much rather see all of the scientists, et al, come out and say 'we're not sure so we'll keep looking and listen to all sides' whilst, at the same time, promoting ways to reduce energy usage, etc., as a means by which we all save money and help to make what resources we have last longer. However, the other side to that is that there are many countries (notably China and India) that are becoming powerful industrialized nations that want what we've (who can blame them?) had and are, seemingly, happy to turn a blind eye to pollution and the environment to get it. Then there is a rapidly growing population, possible water shortages, and so on and so on. I guess the problem becomes: which issue do we/can we address with any hope of success and if we pick one what happens to the others?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm not trying to convince you to support the AGW theory, as I'm undecided on it myself. The point is that you can't just decide what the answer is, and then scream at the top of your lungs about only the reports that agree with you. That's not science.
Fair point though I would say that the rhetoric from both sides is almost identical in it's vehemence and denunciation of the other side. There does not appear to be any absolutely compelling evidence from either side and, as someone who has been around the block a few times, I've heard it all before (so to speak) so find it very difficult to take seriously while both sides fight like playground bullies. Everyone is just pointing fingers and throwing meaningless insults around which doesn't help anyone. I'd much rather see all of the scientists, et al, come out and say 'we're not sure so we'll keep looking and listen to all sides' whilst, at the same time, promoting ways to reduce energy usage, etc., as a means by which we all save money and help to make what resources we have last longer. However, the other side to that is that there are many countries (notably China and India) that are becoming powerful industrialized nations that want what we've (who can blame them?) had and are, seemingly, happy to turn a blind eye to pollution and the environment to get it. Then there is a rapidly growing population, possible water shortages, and so on and so on. I guess the problem becomes: which issue do we/can we address with any hope of success and if we pick one what happens to the others?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Well said. :thumbsup:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
He's avoiding my post anyway. The funny thing is that the more he posts about AGW being a scam, and the more he tries to support his side by quoting individuals and incredibly-biased reporters, the more I'm driven away from his side. Maybe he's actually been planted by the "alarmists" to make the anti-AGW side look like a bunch of amateurs and fools. Just like CSS is probably a government spy, trying to make the conspiracy nuts look like fools! It all makes perfect sense! :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)It's posts like his and CSS that drive away any good conversation that hasn't been hashed over twenty times already. Like his reply to my post. I wasn't even talking to him. It was just a rant. Failing to respond to any portion of what I said or really understanding that I gave no assertion to the existence of AWG, just that it didn't matter. What kind of surprise can you have when you get what you elect? Since oil is traded on the world market in dollars how does more domestic drilling change that? Any oil drilled on or off our shores, or on land in the US going to drop prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Even if AWG doesn't exist, is it not in US national security interest to get off of it? I don't pretend I can solve the world's problems, but I also don't pretend I don't have any impact on it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm not trying to convince you to support the AGW theory, as I'm undecided on it myself. The point is that you can't just decide what the answer is, and then scream at the top of your lungs about only the reports that agree with you. That's not science.
Fair point though I would say that the rhetoric from both sides is almost identical in it's vehemence and denunciation of the other side. There does not appear to be any absolutely compelling evidence from either side and, as someone who has been around the block a few times, I've heard it all before (so to speak) so find it very difficult to take seriously while both sides fight like playground bullies. Everyone is just pointing fingers and throwing meaningless insults around which doesn't help anyone. I'd much rather see all of the scientists, et al, come out and say 'we're not sure so we'll keep looking and listen to all sides' whilst, at the same time, promoting ways to reduce energy usage, etc., as a means by which we all save money and help to make what resources we have last longer. However, the other side to that is that there are many countries (notably China and India) that are becoming powerful industrialized nations that want what we've (who can blame them?) had and are, seemingly, happy to turn a blind eye to pollution and the environment to get it. Then there is a rapidly growing population, possible water shortages, and so on and so on. I guess the problem becomes: which issue do we/can we address with any hope of success and if we pick one what happens to the others?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
Then there is a rapidly growing population, possible water shortages
You mean the old population scare reborn or the new one? As for water thats a laugh. There is more frech water dumped into the sea in the UK in a year to feed the earth a million times over. (OK, that IS an exageraiton, but you get the point I am sure).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
- Satellits dont show warming (despite being validate by sonde readings) so they adjust them. 2) Troposphere not as warm as the theory says it should be, so use wind as a proxy for temp. 3) Surface not as warm as it should be: a) Drop cold stations b) Adjust data c) Calculate the resulting gaps from hot stations, like those near airports and other urban. 4) MWP embarrasing? Eliminate it with a scientifically unsound 'hockey stick' 5) LIA embarrasing? Do the same.
I think we've been through a lot of this. Some of it was likely due to mistakes or researchers taking shortcuts. Some of it was due to a lack of more detailed numbers, or distrust of certain readings. Some of it was sound reasoning, but has been misinterpreted by the public and spun by the other side.
fat_boy wrote:
- When caught out using the now embarrasing hockey stick, claim AGW started 'since 1750'. (Hockey stick had it at 1880) and blame it on the 'industrial revoloution' (IPCC 4AR), Despite the fact that at 1750 the industrial revoloution consisted, globally, of 70 or so Newcomen steam engines. 7) Stopping the publicaiton of sceptical science studies. (Jones Emails) 8) Criminal activity. Jones not complying with an FoI request. (instead asking everyone to delete the data that was requested). 9) Receiving funds from Foundations whose aim is to 'politicise science' (Sorros and Hansen) 10) Intentionally misstating the predicted melting point of glaciers in order to 'make governments sit up and notice'. And if I looked at all my references I could go on and on and on. These are just the highlights that come to mind. Dont tell me about bias and lack of scientific rigour. The AGW world is shot through with the foulest ethical corruption ever seen in the world of science!
And like I said, you're trying to attack the issue by attacking the credibility of the IPCC researchers, as if that was the only study that supports the AGW theory. You think one research group encompasses the entire scientific world, or at least the portion of it on that side of the debate. I guess it's easier to attack a person than an idea.
fat_boy wrote:
And by the way I am in favour of environmental programs. And one of the most disturbing aspects of AGW is the money and time that has been wasted on this non issue while other more pressing real environmental issu
Actually I thought this discussion was about scientific rigour. If you want facts then refer to my previous mails regarding lack of significant warming and the beneficial weffects of CO on plant growth.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: You really are an ignorant little f***er. Wow, who rattled your cage today?
Oh come on. You know damn well you're acting like a prick because you enjoy getting a rise so there you go. Truth be told I was baiting you with my original reply about Rudd anyway, I knew the assumption you'd draw and I knew you'd jump in without verifying it.
Let me quote fomr the site I used for this thread: "Kevin Rudd, Australia’s gung-ho global-warming prime minister, lost his job the day before he was set to fly to the G20 meetings; just months earlier Australia’s conservative opposition leader, also gung-go on global warming, lost his job in an anti-global-warming backbencher revolt" So its all pro GW in Australia is it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
digital man wrote:
Then there is a rapidly growing population, possible water shortages
You mean the old population scare reborn or the new one? As for water thats a laugh. There is more frech water dumped into the sea in the UK in a year to feed the earth a million times over. (OK, that IS an exageraiton, but you get the point I am sure).
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
You mean the old population scare reborn or the new one?
It's always been there. There are too many people with insufficient resources to support them all. That is a problem that needs to be addressed but never will be. The point of the water is not that we don't have nay: we have plenty though still need to build a desalination plant on the Essex coast but that there are areas of the world that have insufficient water or access to water with growing populations who will be forced to do something to either get that water or see there populations decimated. Some choice!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
fat_boy wrote:
- Satellits dont show warming (despite being validate by sonde readings) so they adjust them. 2) Troposphere not as warm as the theory says it should be, so use wind as a proxy for temp. 3) Surface not as warm as it should be: a) Drop cold stations b) Adjust data c) Calculate the resulting gaps from hot stations, like those near airports and other urban. 4) MWP embarrasing? Eliminate it with a scientifically unsound 'hockey stick' 5) LIA embarrasing? Do the same.
I think we've been through a lot of this. Some of it was likely due to mistakes or researchers taking shortcuts. Some of it was due to a lack of more detailed numbers, or distrust of certain readings. Some of it was sound reasoning, but has been misinterpreted by the public and spun by the other side.
fat_boy wrote:
- When caught out using the now embarrasing hockey stick, claim AGW started 'since 1750'. (Hockey stick had it at 1880) and blame it on the 'industrial revoloution' (IPCC 4AR), Despite the fact that at 1750 the industrial revoloution consisted, globally, of 70 or so Newcomen steam engines. 7) Stopping the publicaiton of sceptical science studies. (Jones Emails) 8) Criminal activity. Jones not complying with an FoI request. (instead asking everyone to delete the data that was requested). 9) Receiving funds from Foundations whose aim is to 'politicise science' (Sorros and Hansen) 10) Intentionally misstating the predicted melting point of glaciers in order to 'make governments sit up and notice'. And if I looked at all my references I could go on and on and on. These are just the highlights that come to mind. Dont tell me about bias and lack of scientific rigour. The AGW world is shot through with the foulest ethical corruption ever seen in the world of science!
And like I said, you're trying to attack the issue by attacking the credibility of the IPCC researchers, as if that was the only study that supports the AGW theory. You think one research group encompasses the entire scientific world, or at least the portion of it on that side of the debate. I guess it's easier to attack a person than an idea.
fat_boy wrote:
And by the way I am in favour of environmental programs. And one of the most disturbing aspects of AGW is the money and time that has been wasted on this non issue while other more pressing real environmental issu
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I guess it's easier to attack a person than an idea.
This is how all ideas are fought against. Why use facts or alternate explanations when you can't destroy the idea any other way.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're tackling the issue as a politician instead of a scientist
bingo! :) Thinking has been replaced with a religious like process of demonization to support what someone doesn't or does want to do now. If AWG is proven to be fact beyond any reasonable doubt, than the whole world of man would have to change how it lived. Economies, etc would cease to function as they do now, because as a worse case scenario humanity would go extinct if it didn't adapt.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm not trying to convince you to support the AGW theory
I didn't think I was either.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
It's posts like his and CSS that drive away any good conversation that hasn't been hashed over twenty times already. Like his reply to my post. I wasn't even talking to him. It was just a rant. Failing to respond to any portion of what I said or really understanding that I gave no assertion to the existence of AWG, just that it didn't matter. What kind of surprise can you have when you get what you elect? Since oil is traded on the world market in dollars how does more domestic drilling change that? Any oil drilled on or off our shores, or on land in the US going to drop prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Even if AWG doesn't exist, is it not in US national security interest to get off of it? I don't pretend I can solve the world's problems, but I also don't pretend I don't have any impact on it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Let me quote fomr the site I used for this thread: "Kevin Rudd, Australia’s gung-ho global-warming prime minister, lost his job the day before he was set to fly to the G20 meetings; just months earlier Australia’s conservative opposition leader, also gung-go on global warming, lost his job in an anti-global-warming backbencher revolt" So its all pro GW in Australia is it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
You just tried to change tact again. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? You might like to start here[^] Your point here seems to be that Australia's changing of PM somehow validates your views about GW. I am saying that the change of leadership within the Australia Labour party was not related to the GW policies or views of either the current or previous PM. You're an idiot and you dont know what you're talking about when it comes to Australian politics. I'm going to go home, play with my son, put him to bed, eat dinner with my girl friend and smoke a big Dutch joint. You can continue without me if you want.
-
Actually I thought this discussion was about scientific rigour. If you want facts then refer to my previous mails regarding lack of significant warming and the beneficial weffects of CO on plant growth.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I've seen your previous posts and we've discussed them at length... And like I said, oversimplification and cherry-picking. You assume from the start that anything that supports your view is correct, and anything that opposes your view must be corrupt or erroneous. That's the behavior that undermines YOUR credibility.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
You mean the old population scare reborn or the new one?
It's always been there. There are too many people with insufficient resources to support them all. That is a problem that needs to be addressed but never will be. The point of the water is not that we don't have nay: we have plenty though still need to build a desalination plant on the Essex coast but that there are areas of the world that have insufficient water or access to water with growing populations who will be forced to do something to either get that water or see there populations decimated. Some choice!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
It's always been there. There are too many people with insufficient resources to support them all. That is a problem that needs to be addressed but never will be.
And yet the wealth and health of people has gone up in real terms for the last 40 years or so. Perhaps India has a problem, or other countries like that, but its not affecting the west at all. Our populations are stable. As for China, with the laws they had way their poopulaiton is likely to plumet.
digital man wrote:
there are areas of the world that have insufficient water or access to water with growing populations who will be forced to do something to either get that water or see there populations decimated. Some choice!
Yes, and we can help them with engineering solutions (and birth controll ones) if they let us. However they are likely to take an offered hand as imperialism. In which case they can fuck off and die as far as I am concerned. I am not going to loose any sleep over stupid people dying for stupid reasons!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I've seen your previous posts and we've discussed them at length... And like I said, oversimplification and cherry-picking. You assume from the start that anything that supports your view is correct, and anything that opposes your view must be corrupt or erroneous. That's the behavior that undermines YOUR credibility.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
And like I said, oversimplification and cherry-picking
No its not. CO2 is well known to be good for crop production, it has been used for decades in agriculture, and as for temperature the very fact that I quote a 10,000 year data set from greenland and vostok is the exact OPPOSITE of cherry picking! :) I mean, 10,000 years! Thats the whole fucking cherry orchard! And during this time temperatures have been gradually falling. I dont 'assume' that manipulating data to show non existant warming is corrupt, I KNOW its corrupt. Dont you? Do you actually seee Hansens manipulations to show increased warming as valid? If so then we will neve be able to discuss this.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And like I said, oversimplification and cherry-picking
No its not. CO2 is well known to be good for crop production, it has been used for decades in agriculture, and as for temperature the very fact that I quote a 10,000 year data set from greenland and vostok is the exact OPPOSITE of cherry picking! :) I mean, 10,000 years! Thats the whole fucking cherry orchard! And during this time temperatures have been gradually falling. I dont 'assume' that manipulating data to show non existant warming is corrupt, I KNOW its corrupt. Dont you? Do you actually seee Hansens manipulations to show increased warming as valid? If so then we will neve be able to discuss this.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
CO2 is well known to be good for crop production, it has been used for decades in agriculture, and as for temperature the very fact that I quote a 10,000 year data set from greenland and vostok is the exact OPPOSITE of cherry picking!
Good for plants, bad for humans. Which are you? And moving your data points far apart doesn't counteract the idea of cherry-picking. I could go even further back and pick a point in the middle of the last ice age, saying "Hey, look how hot it's getting compared to X!" Hell, let's go back a few billion years, pick a point right near the planet's formation, and say "Hey, we have a lot more water today!" Cherry-picking means selecting specific data points that support your position, instead of trying to locate accurate ones that reflect the general trends.
fat_boy wrote:
I dont 'assume' that manipulating data to show non existant warming is corrupt, I KNOW its corrupt.
But right there, you made an assumption. You assume that the warming isn't there, and then deduce that any data showing it IS there must be manipulated.
fat_boy wrote:
Dont you? Do you actually seee Hansens manipulations to show increased warming as valid? If so then we will neve be able to discuss this.
And again, you're attacking one particular scientist, as if he represents the entire scientific community.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
digital man wrote:
It's always been there. There are too many people with insufficient resources to support them all. That is a problem that needs to be addressed but never will be.
And yet the wealth and health of people has gone up in real terms for the last 40 years or so. Perhaps India has a problem, or other countries like that, but its not affecting the west at all. Our populations are stable. As for China, with the laws they had way their poopulaiton is likely to plumet.
digital man wrote:
there are areas of the world that have insufficient water or access to water with growing populations who will be forced to do something to either get that water or see there populations decimated. Some choice!
Yes, and we can help them with engineering solutions (and birth controll ones) if they let us. However they are likely to take an offered hand as imperialism. In which case they can fuck off and die as far as I am concerned. I am not going to loose any sleep over stupid people dying for stupid reasons!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Perhaps India has a problem, or other countries like that, but its not affecting the west at all.
Not yet, perhaps but there may come a time when the only means for water poor countries is to use force to get it. I'm not saying they'd win out over the west but it won;'t be, to say the least, pleasant.
fat_boy wrote:
However they are likely to take an offered hand as imperialism. In which case they can f*** off and die as far as I am concerned. I am not going to loose any sleep over stupid people dying for stupid reasons!
I'm sure you don't really hold to such a simplistic view of the world. Yes, many would die but, as I said above, left with no choice countries with water shortages will have no choice but try to extract water by whatever means. It may not happen in my life time or yours but it could happen in our childrens lifetime and I don't want that for them as I'm sure you don't for yours. Still, moot, really, as it might not happen at all and we can all relax and enjoy life.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
What you are forgetting is that petrol is a waste product, it is only used for driving cars. Most oil is turned into products, plastics, nylons, medicine etc, so we will need oil for a while yet, even if we all drive cars powered by a Mr Fusion car engine. Still, there is always coal, and Britain has about 20,000 years reserves.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
You just tried to change tact again. Here's a really really simple question for you... was Rudd ditched for someone with a different view on GW? You might like to start here[^] Your point here seems to be that Australia's changing of PM somehow validates your views about GW. I am saying that the change of leadership within the Australia Labour party was not related to the GW policies or views of either the current or previous PM. You're an idiot and you dont know what you're talking about when it comes to Australian politics. I'm going to go home, play with my son, put him to bed, eat dinner with my girl friend and smoke a big Dutch joint. You can continue without me if you want.