Climate Week / + ''Capitalism Doesn't Threaten Humanity''

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

An interesting related article on the failed hockey stick premise losing in court https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/michael_mann_creator_of_the_infamous_global_warming_hockey_stick_loses_lawsuit_against_climate_skeptic_ordered_to_pay_defendants_costs.html?fbclid=IwAR0exTAlh6vDik-weQaFS71ogm-YwgPD2_mBfQJ7kPW1lyJOntCtzqphnb8

The case was actually dismissed, however the Frontier Center for Public Policy had to publish a retraction about their wrongful "hockey stick" claims impugning Mann.

[PE Scott + 563]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

An interesting related article on the failed hockey stick premise losing in court https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/michael_mann_creator_of_the_infamous_global_warming_hockey_stick_loses_lawsuit_against_climate_skeptic_ordered_to_pay_defendants_costs.html?fbclid=IwAR0exTAlh6vDik-weQaFS71ogm-YwgPD2_mBfQJ7kPW1lyJOntCtzqphnb8

 

From that article:

"Real science, not the phony "consensus" version, requires open access to data so skeptics (who play a key role in science) can see if results are reproducible."

So good news everyone! We science the hell out of stuff here!

[PE Scott + 563]

 

Accidental repost, but while I'm here.....

I don't understand how a decline in population growth, not a population decrease, signals that population isn't part of the issue. In any scenario, whether you consider CO2 to be a driving factor or not, population size directly correlates to the emissions and effect society has on the enviroment. How could it not after a point?

As a result of good ol' capitalism, we have learned to do more with less and do it more efficiently in order to support larger and larger populations. I'm sure there is a lot of money to be made combating the perceived problems in our world today and capitalism will happily step in and solve the problem while netting a tidy sum for some brave or lucky entrepreneurs.

Edited October 8, 2019 by PE Scott
Re-post

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Maybe ''stop having children you didn't plan for in the first place''. Just an idea ...

Doesn’t that go back to ‘common sense’?🤔

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Doesn’t that go back to ‘common sense’?🤔

Yeah well, sometimes that seems to be lacking, especially on here

[Boat + 1,324]

16 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I am continually amazed at how supposedly educated and logical people will try to blame ANY environmental issue on anything and everything except the obvious root cause:

An exploding global population!

Perhaps eating babies IS the solution! That’s an AOC slag folks....

More people require more resources...it is really as simple as that.

When you add more people rapidly, you need more resources rapidly...

Doug, we don’t agree on much but are tied to the hip on overpopulation as being the #I problem.

Here is where our views might part. That would mean much smaller economies should be what politicians support. Efficiency should be the gold standard for governments not growth for growths sake which is the traditional view. 
Any trade war should be tied to better working conditions and the environment so the playing field is more balanced for those companies that do support cleaner practices.

My stance against immigration is all about slowing population and nothing to do race issues. Voluntary population reduction is already happening in the more advanced economies. Just think how much faster this could happen with incentives not to have children and take away incentives to have them. 
 

With capitalism the strongest companies will always attract dollars along with new products. A smaller pie/GDP should be a smart result of less population.

 

[remake it + 288]

13 hours ago, PE Scott said:

I don't understand how a decline in population growth, not a population decrease, signals that population isn't part of the issue. In any scenario, whether you consider CO2 to be a driving factor or not, population size directly correlates to the emissions and effect society has on the enviroment. How could it not after a point?

Population was never a factor until the Industrial Revolution and unsurprisingly the strong positive correlation is with CO2 and industrialization rather than population.

[Guest]

This industrialisation ..? 

It was, er ...  humans yes ..?

[Guest]

[remake it + 288]

17 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

This industrialisation ..? 

It was, er ...  humans yes ..?

That's why it is called AGW - a very small number of humans with a lot of machines that needed to be powered, while the majority of humans on the planet had no material impact.

[Guest]

But industrialisation was for the good of the whole of society? It wasn't done for a laugh. And arguably needed doing because of ridiculous population growth.

It sounds like your suggesting population is not the problem, industrialisation is. And it was only done by a small section of society. Well yeah. So?

The majority had no material impact, but they all benefitted, but just the people running the machines are bad? I'm clearly reading this wrong, been a long day. Meh.

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

12 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

But industrialisation was for the good of the whole of society? It wasn't done for a laugh. And arguably needed doing because of ridiculous population growth.

It sounds like your suggesting population is not the problem, industrialisation is. And it was only done by a small section of society. Well yeah. So?

The majority had no material impact, but they all benefitted, but just the people running the machines are bad? I'm clearly reading this wrong, been a long day. Meh.

 

You are now going down very different paths to the thread starter, and propose a trivial argument as yet another of your many diversions.

[Guest]

I give up.

Anything I say that you can't answer is a diversion. You seem to be the king of diversion.

I AM the thread starter so will mention what I like. 

46 minutes ago, remake it said:

a very small number of humans with a lot of machines that needed to be powered, while the majority of humans on the planet had no material impact.

You say this, I REPLY!!! , and it's diverting ??!  Your entire point seems to be ''it's not population that's bad, it's industrialisation''.  Well it was done BY humans for the population funnily enough. You have no answers ever to anything so simply say ''er.. you're diverting, that's not what I wanna harp on about''.  If you were clearer maybe you wouldn't keep having this issue. 

And you say it's a ''trivial argument'' hahah. We can all see it's you who is diverting, just as you did again and again on the other thread. 

Boring. ''Population isn't a problem, it's rocketing down at 0.02% a year''. Wooh. Another of your great diverting points. 

Cheers. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

28 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

But industrialisation was for the good of the whole of society? It wasn't done for a laugh. And arguably needed doing because of ridiculous population growth.

It sounds like your suggesting population is not the problem, industrialisation is. And it was only done by a small section of society. Well yeah. So?

The majority had no material impact, but they all benefitted, but just the people running the machines are bad? I'm clearly reading this wrong, been a long day. Meh.

 

 

13 minutes ago, remake it said:

You are now going down very different paths to the thread starter, and propose a trivial argument as yet another of your many diversions.

I fail to see how DT's comment here is off topic (different path) to the thread here, or how DT's comment is a  diversion.

Seems to me, DT started the thread, and the comment is a logical progression in the context of the thread.

 

/ edit  looks like I replied at the same time as you did DT...  I didn't see your comment just above mine.

 

[Guest]

Thankyou.  Just seems to be his entire strategy or something. 

''Er ... I wanna talk about this, and have no answer to that ... you're diverting! ''

All he does is divert, on all threads !

And I even hinted I must be reading this wrong etc and just get abuse  🙄

#wompwomp, ''how dare you!  how absolutely dare you sir!''

Edited October 8, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-ySW5FGxpw

@Tom Kirkman   ''disgraceful''

Edited October 8, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

38 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

I give up.

Anything I say that you can't answer is a diversion. You seem to be the king of diversion.

I AM the thread starter so will mention what I like. 

You say this, I REPLY!!! , and it's diverting ??!  Your entire point seems to be ''it's not population that's bad, it's industrialisation''.  Well it was done BY humans for the population funnily enough. You have no answers ever to anything so simply say ''er.. you're diverting, that's not what I wanna harp on about''.  If you were clearer maybe you wouldn't keep having this issue. 

And you say it's a ''trivial argument'' hahah. We can all see it's you who is diverting, just as you did again and again on the other thread. 

Boring. ''Population isn't a problem, it's rocketing down at 0.02% a year''. Wooh. Another of your great diverting points. 

Cheers. 

Try keeping to the points initially made rather than sidetracking, as all you have done is re-introduce the "rising tide" fallacy from the initial post, along with other fallacious arguments you offer.

[Guest]

The irony.

Thankyou for proving ALL of my points with every word you type.

[remake it + 288]

58 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Seems to me, DT started the thread, and the comment is a logical progression in the context of the thread.

The thread is about "capitalism" but the problems are inherently attributable to industrialization which began in the mid 1700s when population growth was not an issue despite Mr Buckland's assertion that the population factor was an "obvious" matter.

Edited October 8, 2019 by remake it
obvious

[Guest]

It wasn't an issue in the mid 1700s then, nope. 

23 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I am continually amazed at how supposedly educated and logical people will try to blame ANY environmental issue on anything and everything except the obvious root cause:

An exploding global population!

 

But soon after, it went from 1B people in 1800 to 7.7B people in just 200 years.

If that's not exploding I don't know what is. Anyway, this didn't affect the planet apparently.  

Glad we sorted that out. 

21 hours ago, remake it said:

Given the "explosion" ceased over 2 generations ago it is not obvious,

I think the damage may have already been done, and human history is quite a bit longer than 60 years. Just a feeling. Is this your whole population argument? Based on 2 generations ago? LOL. 

''Look at this graph that appears to go downhill'' .. oh it's because of the whopping 0.02% population reductions and how the graph is formed. Briliant. How desperate can you be?

Reread what Doug put and try and stay on topic please. Less of the agenda and diversions. That would be lovely.

The planet and mankind and even capitalism are longer than your huge 60 year timeframe. Shocking, I know. Planet Earth will thank you for some common sense (another of the initial postings that you seem to want to refer to).

Cheers. Bye.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Guest

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, DayTrader said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-ySW5FGxpw

@Tom Kirkman   ''disgraceful''

Womp Womp never gets old : )

 

[Guest]

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

21 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The culture of constantly being offended by anyone who disagrees is tiresome.

 

You guys seem plenty offended by Greta... as noted by the numerous threads mentioning her.

Delicate snowflakes.

You also know the eating babies thing was a joke.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

You guys seem plenty offended

Not at all. How can you be offended by a used, ill child?!  I'm offended by her own parents and the agenda behind her being on a global stage. I have no issue with 'her' at all. She is a kid ffs. 

I am a snowflake though. Delicate and unique, and you love me. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

3 hours ago, DayTrader said:

But soon after, it went from 1B people to 7.7B people in just 200 years.

If that's not exploding I don't know what is. Anyway, this didn't affect the planet apparently.  

An explosion is an increase in the rate of change, and as that ceased some 60 years ago what exactly is "obvious" and what is it that you believe is really causing whatever it is that is happening?