Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Heavencloud]

or people could relocate? germany is the size of ontario or smaller, it holds 85 million and afaik no one in germany is particularly complaining about it. Canada as a whole is absolutely massive, and could really hold a lot more people. Candada takes in something along the lines of 300,000 immigrants for various reasons, very single year, and with no signs of slowing down

stop spouting your pop solutions. the world is not overpopulated, poor people are having too many kids and they can't support them, there's a huge difference in stupid family planning and world overpopulation

There are simply not enough resources for everyone to live a modern lifestyle. As I said, the only reason it's working is because 80% are in poverty. I believe everyone should be able to have a good style of living - out of poverty - and the earth simply won't support 7 billion people that have that lifestyle. Thus, we are overpopulated.

[Howard Roark]

so once everyone is living the american dream properly, would you say that the world will be properly populated?

time and time again, the divide between the rich and the poor grows, no matter the best intentions, changes in government, locale, leadership what have you


there will always be poor people, there will always be someone whose idea of success is measured against that of others

I'm not saying we need a pandemic, but sadly, it would help the survival of the human species as a whole.

I got an idea, lets have periodic killings so everyone can keep living happily in the version of capitalism we all currently enjoy

you are hilariously ideocentric

[Shiroikage]

The most wonderful thing about Max is how blind he is as to how science actually works in practice.

[Howard Roark]

The most wonderful thing about Max is how blind he is as to how science actually works in practice.

Science is implicitly correct, application is a matter of opinion. And opinion is too close to faith if you ask me.

[Heavencloud]

So you think that there should be millions upon millions of people living and dying because of malnutrition and starvation?

And of course Family planning is a serious issue, but that's what environmentalists believe, so you definitely shouldn't side with them!

I never said anything about the American Dream, I'm talking about having enough to LIVE on. We use way more than we need.

[Howard Roark]

So you think that there should be millions upon millions of people living and dying because of malnutrition and starvation?

so fix world hunger then, I have an idea how you might do it

And of course Family planning is a serious issue, but that's what environmentalists believe, so you definitely shouldn't side with them!

I never said anything about the American Dream, I'm talking about having enough to LIVE on. We use way more than we need.

people are so stupid, they act like our waste takes food from the hands of people that don't know how to/can't provide for themselves


maybe you didn't mention the American dream but you do seem to think that poor people don't have the right to live and are effectively the impetus for some kind of "population adjustment"

I can just picture, CNN stops talking about genocide and mass killings and instead talks about "population adjustment" thanks to old Heavencloud here. It's like "collateral damage" and "insurgents" all over again

[Heavencloud]

so fix world hunger then, I have an idea how you might do it



people are so stupid, they act like our waste takes food from the hands of people that don't know how to/can't provide for themselves


maybe you didn't mention the American dream but you do seem to think that poor people don't have the right to live and are effectively the impetus for some kind of "population adjustment"

I can just picture, CNN stops talking about genocide and mass killings and instead talks about "population adjustment" thanks to old Heavencloud here. It's like "collateral damage" and "insurgents" all over again

Did you even read what I said?

Let's look back.

I'm not saying we need a pandemic, but sadly, it would help the survival of the human species as a whole.

We don't need a pandemic. Where did you get that I said we should kill innocent people? And who are you quoting on "population adjustment?"

However, as more nations become industrialized, and as poverty ridden countries populations continue to rise, there will indefinitely be wars over natural resources. We will likely see this within the next twenty years in Africa over water.

you do seem to think that poor people don't have the right to live

I believe everyone should be able to have a good style of living - out of poverty -

To reiterate, it would be great if we could minimize poverty - but it's not possible given the resources & population amounts.

[Beckwin]

incorrect. there's enough resources to feed, shelter, clothe, and educate every human being on the planet right now.

why it's not being used to do so is a problem outside of this discussion.

[Howard Roark]

man you hint more than obama without saying much

we dont need to KILL ALL POOR PEOPLE but we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING or else thirst and starvation will KILL ALL THOSE POOR PEOPLE

[Howard Roark]

incorrect. there's enough resources to feed, shelter, clothe, and educate every human being on the planet right now.

why it's not being used to do so is a problem outside of this discussion.

thank you beckwin

heavencloud seems to think all the poor people are taking up our air

"look I'm not saying I hate poor people but I wish there were less people breathing my air since it's running out and all the co2 they breathe out is causing global warming."

"It's impossible to solve world hunger or somehow effectively use all these resources we have stockpiled, we're gonna have to do something about those poor people. Not sure what we're gonna do to with them since we couldn't possibly be more creative with restructuring the resources we do have."

you're killin me heavencloud lol..







oh wait I'm not poor, guess I'm safe

[Heavencloud]

You really don't understand, do you?

Every organism has a carrying capacity. Humans have been able to change this rule due to technology, yet we ignore 80% of our population and allow them to suffer. Clearly this is a huge issue, and I think it's sad that we've (as a species) let it get to this point. You obviously don't understand the standpoint that I'm coming from, so what ever. This is off topic anyway.

How about them greenhouze gasses? lol

[Howard Roark]

You really don't understand, do you?

Every organism has a carrying capacity. Humans have been able to change this rule due to technology, yet we ignore 80% of our population and allow them to suffer. Clearly this is a huge issue, and I think it's sad that we've (as a species) let it get to this point. You obviously don't understand the standpoint that I'm coming from, so what ever. This is off topic anyway.

How about them greenhouze gasses? lol

if by "organism" you mean earth then okay, but we're nowhere near our carrying capacity. and if you think population has nothing to do with global warming then you're ridiculous, who do you think is being affected by global warming? the animals? boo hoo

I feel like I'm reading pop psychology when you spout these bland hollow ideas

"we need to do something, for someone somehow or something will happen. P.S. kill off the poor people but you didn't hear it from me"

you wanna stay on point about greenhouse gasses, how about the cause of what's pumping these gasses into the atmosphere, it's certainly not dinosaur farts -- it's people there bud, rich and poor alike (sorry to indelicately put those 2 very different species in the same sentence like that, I know your delicate temperament)



I see right through what you're saying and you claim I don't understand where you're coming from. Well maybe you don't even know what this garbage is you're spouting, and it's dangerous pop enviromental solutions that they spout on blogs and fox news for morons like you who just regurgitate the latest solution while just waiting for someone else to fix it.

Of course it appeals to you in its simplicity because I mean hey, 80% of the world lives in unsuitable (read "poor") conditions anyway, and we gotta do something about them, it comes to "us or them" doesn't it, and of course that couldn't possibly mean "us"





It's just funny how we're the ones polluting and wasting and assholes like Heavencloud think we should knock off a few poor people so we can keep living the American Dream

[eunhye]

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

The intelligence behind this is the following:

-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world's population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.

-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world's forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

-Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.

[Acturus]

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

CALL THE DUGGERS!

[Tristam]

Uh, what?


It is like I said at the end of that post: can you find the data (besides the stuff they threw away), how they processed it, why it was processed as it was, how the model works, what the data does for the model to work from, etc.

If you were given a rack of supercomputers with all the models they use, without knowing what their secret sauce tweaks are, and simply ran the data through, do you think you'd get the same results?


No, you wouldn't, because they have their hidden factors which get tweaked with no explanation or specification beyond "additional forcing reaction".

You couldn't find the data either... so... fuck, what the hell is hard to see about this not being "good science"?

Right now the CRU data webpage is inundated with volume, but NOAA has had a link to their data up for a while now. I refuse to believe you couldn't find the data, it was easy to find.

As for treating the data, yes, it's really difficult and complicated, but the data and code is available. I'll say it again, the data and code have already been acquired and used to publish other models in other papers. Obviously it can be done. Some of your denialist blog buddies have even done it. The answer to your question is yes. But perhaps you missed that paper too? Of course you could also use NOAA's data set, which shows the same trends if you don't believe CRU. Maybe you want duplicate sets? Go to GISS. But even if you don't believe CRU, it's not them who collected the data, it's various world meteorological organizations. CRU researchers didn't walk around with thermometers in the air, other world agencies did the work, CRU collected the data and reconstructed global averages based off of instrumental records.

The reason all the data cannot instantly be available is probably the same reason the NOAA tracks everything that happens with the data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/res...page=ghcn.html

The details of the reconstructions and analysis are shown in various (long) papers you can find on Mann's PSU website for example. If this is a "hobby" as you say, I'm really surprised you're not teaching me about all the statistical methods and showing me what the problems with their published methods are. I am not a statistician, or a great mathematician, or even a climate scientist, but I know people who are much more talented than I have read these detailed papers and have found no problems with their data treatment. I've worked with great mathematicians who have been kind enough to instruct me on statistics and error analysis that I use for my own research, so I can certainly learn from you if you are willing to teach me. If you think they fudged something, you damn sure better show it or you come off as very arrogant. Otherwise you're attributing trends to magic.

Tell you what, go to the papers where they published the models, it's going to take you a while, but if this is your hobby and you like math, it should be fun. Find out what factors you think were "tweaked" and write a letter to the prof (be polite) asking for an explanation. If you READ THE EMAILS you would see that they get these requests, and they respond politely as long as they are treated in kind. Although Mann has made his work publicly accessible through his website, others may not have due to licensing and publication restrictions (not to mention costs), but if you ask for a pdf, I've never ever been turned down, nor would I turn down someone who asked for a sample of my own work.

this is a good starting point, you always ask for detailed issues in models and how they can be falsified. this is a relatively old paper from way back when models first started to really explain anthropogenic effects on climate. It's loooong, but interesting from a historical perspective. It details problems, uncertainties, forcings, experiments, data, controls, and so forth. It gives an indication of where things will improve in the future.
http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:...Santer1995.pdf

[Olo401]

there's a huge difference in stupid family planning and world overpopulation

And to think Sarah Palin has five children and a grandchild...

[Heavencloud]

if by "organism" you mean earth then okay, but we're nowhere near our carrying capacity. and if you think population has nothing to do with global warming then you're ridiculous, who do you think is being affected by global warming? the animals? boo hoo

Where did I say population has nothing to do with global warming? Quit misquoting me, lol.

We are certainly near our carrying capacity. You clearly cannot see past a couple of decades. If we turn the earth into a big feeding farm, the consequences will be irreversible.

-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world's forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

-Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.

Yup. No where near our carrying capacity.

It's just funny how we're the ones polluting and wasting and assholes like Heavencloud think we should knock off a few poor people so we can keep living the American Dream

I like how you think you know me, have you ever lived in poverty? It's really not that great.

[Max™]

The most wonderful thing about Max is how blind he is as to how science actually works in practice.

Maybe that's why I was always drawn to physics.

You can't fudge electrons, lose matrices, or do anything particularly shady besides renormalization.

I mean, saying that it is ok to fuck up and stop doing actual science, because it is different when you do practical things with it that make it not science, that's cool.

Just don't fucking call it science, by Thor, how hard is that?

[Cadsuane]

This thread's taken a turn for the stupid(er) this past page.

[Max™]

I know, between the population debate, the mention of the Duggar hive, Palin's stupid cunt, and now me 'tarding all over the place... lift off and nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.