|
0 members (),
1,082
guests, and
72
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,723 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,723 Likes: 2 |
Oh fun, it looks like the True Believers on both sides are going at it. I'll keep score! Hehehehe 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4 |
Stuart, thanks for the answer, but the question was directed to Hawk! I am interested in his answer. Hawk, is it a given that there can be "True believers" at both extremes? Are you implying that the current discussion involves True belie....naah... that would never happen here....!!!! Define them, huh?  Can't I paraphrase Justice Stewart and know them when I see them? : Those who already know the answer, and don't need the science to get there. If a study shows a different result than the answer they already know, the study was clearly biased. They tend to make personal attacks on those who don't understand (the "deniers" phrasing for global warning can be typcial). And they're *easily* found on both sides--my favorite example is economics, where one side thinks that raising taxes doesn't reduce economic activity, while the other thinks that cutting them *always* increases revenue. In truth, the amount of reduction is well known for most activities, and the amount of increased or decreased revenues is known for many. Dyson is one of the few rational voices I've heard on Global Warming, but I do remember the same solutions having been proposed for Global Cooling. And since many of them are teh same persons and organizations (and weren't they also the Nuclear Winter crowd?), I am skeptical. (and haven't we had two volcanic eruptions big enough to guarantee a nuclear winter under those models?) hawk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
"Those who already know the answer, and don't need the science to get there. If a study shows a different result than the answer they already know, the study was clearly biased. "
The corollary of which is the authors of the "biased" study are "in the pocket" of some special interest. Interestingly, this is almost always either (a) the automobile industry; or (b) the oil companies. "Environmentalists" are never in anyone's pocket, because, after all, they have only the best interests of the planet at heart. Like, say, Al Gore, who would never profit from creating environmental hysteria, right?
"They tend to make personal attacks on those who don't understand (the "deniers" phrasing for global warning can be typcial)."
Well, of course, because we're ignorant, greedy, unenlightened and outright evil. And did I mention in the pockets of the oil companies and the automobile industry (though how the latter can afford my exorbitant fees, I don't know).
"And they're *easily* found on both sides--my favorite example is economics, where one side thinks that raising taxes doesn't reduce economic activity, while the other thinks that cutting them *always* increases revenue."
I don't know anyone with even a passing knowledge of economics who believes the latter, but there is an optimal rate of taxation that maximizes revenues, and beyond which revenues decline.
"Dyson is one of the few rational voices I've heard on Global Warming"
Bjorn Lomborg is another. So is Czech President Vaclav Klaus.
"And since many of them are teh same persons and organizations (and weren't they also the Nuclear Winter crowd?), I am skeptical."
Well, if they drag out Helen Caldicott, then it's all over. But if things get too hot, we can always set off a few thousand nukes to bring down the temperature.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29 |
You say that human population will come to a plateau in 2050. That may be. Please share your thesis. It is a matter of demographics. The population bomb folks have been wrong these past 50 years. In short, as populations advance out of poverty the birth rate declines and population growth slows. China will half its population in the coming generations (though they do so by murdering their children). Europe is below replacement level and will continue to import people. North America is still above replacement level but not by much. The population bomb folks seem to only consider using birth rates that are higher (from past decades usually) and don’t seem to ever account for influencing factors. If you go and look at the numbers birth rates are declining everywhere, including what we call the Third World. Yes, a number of these nations are well above 2.1 children per woman but look at the trends. Do the math (absolute number calculations and not just cherry picked percentages from certain countries used by the “ticking-time-bomb” folks) and you’ll find that it shows the world’s population maxing out about 2050 or so. The population “problem” (if one can call it that) has little to do with the number of people on the earth and almost everything to do with bad governments. Wealth creation is the way to lift the poor out of poverty, and when that happens birth rates fall. Africa’s resources are still almost untapped. Putting aside the global warming myth, one of the major issues with wealth creation is access to energy. Right now the West (among other things) is trying to keep places like Africa poor by limiting its access to its own cheap energy. The way forward is to help underdeveloped parts of the world to develop in ways that are responsible (promoting both liberty and good stewardship of the environment, etc.). Obama sending Secretary of State Clinton to promote the American values of abortion and artificial contraception is not the answer. [I’m on travel this week so I don’t have my links collection but you might want to check the archives of the Wall Street Journal. They’ve had a number of good articles on this topic in recent years.] As far as the water issues, I’m not overly concerned. Those who choose to live in areas were there is a limited water supply will eventually pay a greater cost to import water from elsewhere. Think of a pipeline from the Great Lakes to California, or developing technologies to cheaply turn sea water into drinkable water. Extreme examples, of course, but it should make the point that there are ways to address the issue. But the importation of water from places where it is plentiful (for both drinking and farming) will allow thing like aquifers to recover. On the issue of cow methane and other environmental issues, the future is in solid science. Consensus is pretty useless unless backed by science. A consensus to reduce cow emission won’t accomplish anything unless the scientists come up with demonstrable ways of accomplishing it. A switch in feed to reduce methane output is an excellent example. It can be measured. A general consensus to stop people from eating meat to reduce the number of cows (which some environmentalists want) is just silly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
Every time someone brings up overpopulation I have to wonder what their solution to overpopulation would be. Contraception, sterilization, abortion?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,328 Likes: 95
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,328 Likes: 95 |
On the issue of cow methane How do you stop a cow from passing gas? My wife teaches kindergarten and they have a time trying to keep the little ones from doing that. Bob
Last edited by theophan; 06/25/09 11:36 AM. Reason: spelling
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29 |
...Someone who believes the earth is going to be roasted into a cinder because of car exhausts and smokestacks that put out less in a year than a single, average sized volcano, who also ignores everything that happened before 1900,...
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
PLEASE STUART K - STOP STOP STOP POSTING WHILE YOU CAN !!
I.F. It is interesting how Jean Francois always distorts and turns to personal attack. Stuart spoke of "car exhausts and smokestacks that put out less in a year than a single, average sized volcano" and JF attacks with something quite different (and meaningless in the context of Stuart's comments). And then tells Stuart to quit posting. Not much different than his accusations against me the other day where because I disagree with him I must want our children and grandchildren to die. J.F really is a "True Believer" whose belief is not affected scientific fact. I must ask him to stop the personal attacks. If he cannot post based upon science then he should not post.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
"How do you stop a cow from passing gas?" Genetic engineering. If there is a law passed restricting the gas output of cows sold for meat, then my worry would be the lack of genetic diversity in our herds. They are developing such cows in England. I don't know how they intend to bring it out of a lab. Modifying the genes of one cow is one thing, but to modify the genes of hundreds or thousands? Some people are saying that we need to switch from cow to kangaroo. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22879806-29277,00.html Terry
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29 |
Does grilled kangaroo taste like beef or chicken? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473 |
Quote by the Administrator .. Not much different than his accusations against me the other day where because I disagree with him I must want our children and grandchildren to die. J.F really is a "True Believer" whose belief is not affected scientific fact. This statement was supose to be humorous, but after reading it, I could see how someone would be offended. Certainly I would never believe that Conservatives would let their children or grandchildren for no good reason. It I did offend anyone, with this statement, then please accept my sincere appologies. Again, I.F.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473 |
You say that human population will come to a plateau in 2050. That may be. Please share your thesis. It is a matter of demographics. The population bomb folks have been wrong these past 50 years. In short, as populations advance out of poverty the birth rate declines and population growth slows. China will half its population in the coming generations (though they do so by murdering their children). Europe is below replacement level and will continue to import people. North America is still above replacement level but not by much. The population bomb folks seem to only consider using birth rates that are higher (from past decades usually) and don’t seem to ever account for influencing factors. If you go and look at the numbers birth rates are declining everywhere, including what we call the Third World. Yes, a number of these nations are well above 2.1 children per woman but look at the trends. Do the math (absolute number calculations and not just cherry picked percentages from certain countries used by the “ticking-time-bomb” folks) and you’ll find that it shows the world’s population maxing out about 2050 or so. The population “problem” (if one can call it that) has little to do with the number of people on the earth and almost everything to do with bad governments. Wealth creation is the way to lift the poor out of poverty, and when that happens birth rates fall. Africa’s resources are still almost untapped. Putting aside the global warming myth, one of the major issues with wealth creation is access to energy. Right now the West (among other things) is trying to keep places like Africa poor by limiting its access to its own cheap energy. The way forward is to help underdeveloped parts of the world to develop in ways that are responsible (promoting both liberty and good stewardship of the environment, etc.). Obama sending Secretary of State Clinton to promote the American values of abortion and artificial contraception is not the answer. [I’m on travel this week so I don’t have my links collection but you might want to check the archives of the Wall Street Journal. They’ve had a number of good articles on this topic in recent years.] As far as the water issues, I’m not overly concerned. Those who choose to live in areas were there is a limited water supply will eventually pay a greater cost to import water from elsewhere. Think of a pipeline from the Great Lakes to California, or developing technologies to cheaply turn sea water into drinkable water. Extreme examples, of course, but it should make the point that there are ways to address the issue. But the importation of water from places where it is plentiful (for both drinking and farming) will allow thing like aquifers to recover. On the issue of cow methane and other environmental issues, the future is in solid science. Consensus is pretty useless unless backed by science. A consensus to reduce cow emission won’t accomplish anything unless the scientists come up with demonstrable ways of accomplishing it. A switch in feed to reduce methane output is an excellent example. It can be measured. A general consensus to stop people from eating meat to reduce the number of cows (which some environmentalists want) is just silly. Wow !! I agree with you on all of these issues, except that the the situation of Africa is far more complex than what you have stated - but cheap energy could help. I.F. I.F.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473 |
...Someone who believes the earth is going to be roasted into a cinder because of car exhausts and smokestacks that put out less in a year than a single, average sized volcano, who also ignores everything that happened before 1900,...
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
PLEASE STUART K - STOP STOP STOP POSTING WHILE YOU CAN !!
I.F. It is interesting how Jean Francois always distorts and turns to personal attack. Stuart spoke of "car exhausts and smokestacks that put out less in a year than a single, average sized volcano" and JF attacks with something quite different (and meaningless in the context of Stuart's comments). And then tells Stuart to quit posting. Not much different than his accusations against me the other day where because I disagree with him I must want our children and grandchildren to die. J.F really is a "True Believer" whose belief is not affected scientific fact. I must ask him to stop the personal attacks. If he cannot post based upon science then he should not post. Dear Administrator, I have not distorted StuartK's comments. He stated that humans generate less atmospheric polutants than one single volcano. The fact is he was wrong. Annually, humans generate about 150 times the polutants of a single volcano, and have cited good facts to support my statement. If I'm wrong, please explain how. Thanks, I.F.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473 |
"How do you stop a cow from passing gas?" Genetic engineering. If there is a law passed restricting the gas output of cows sold for meat, then my worry would be the lack of genetic diversity in our herds. They are developing such cows in England. I don't know how they intend to bring it out of a lab. Modifying the genes of one cow is one thing, but to modify the genes of hundreds or thousands? Some people are saying that we need to switch from cow to kangaroo. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22879806-29277,00.html Terry Loss of genetic diversity in all species is always a concern. When I told my neighbor about this story she said she wanted to send her husband for therapy I.F.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4 |
The corollary of which is the authors of the "biased" study are "in the pocket" of some special interest. Interestingly, this is almost always either (a) the automobile industry; or (b) the oil companies. "Environmentalists" are never in anyone's pocket, because, after all, they have only the best interests of the planet at heart. Like, say, Al Gore, who would never profit from creating environmental hysteria, right? Err, bad choice I got a big kick out of the "rich oil interests" in the 2000 election. Bush & Cheney made money in oil, while the 3d (of the four candidates for P & VP), Gore, was wealthy because his father traded Senatorial votes for stock. Yes, Al Gore, Sr., was bought and paid for by the oil interests . . . On the issue of cow methane How do you stop a cow from passing gas? My wife teaches kindergarten and they have a time trying to keep the little ones from doing that. Barbed corks? Beano in the feed? hawk, who never exudes methane
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
Score so far; those on Stuart' side 1; those on jean's side 1. Jean is doing rather well since he has to stand up to all those on Stuart's side. Will this continue? Only time will tell. hawk, please do not inject humor into this serious discussion, you might make Stuart or John laugh, a fact which will diminish the serious nature of this discussion!!!!!
Last edited by johnzonaras; 06/25/09 09:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
