Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Hurricane Maria - Science Deniers Should Skip This One
69 views
Skip to first unread message
Stormin' Norman
Sep 18, 2017, 9:07:26 AM9/18/17
to
Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early
assessment of the storm.
Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
--
The problem is Donald Trump. The solution is impeachment or, the otherwise legal
removal, from office, of the greatest threat to peace the world has ever known.
assessment of the storm.
Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
--
The problem is Donald Trump. The solution is impeachment or, the otherwise legal
removal, from office, of the greatest threat to peace the world has ever known.
Uncle Monster
Sep 18, 2017, 11:04:48 AM9/18/17
to
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:07:26 AM UTC-5, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early
> assessment of the storm.
>
> Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
> --
>
What's a "Science Denier"? Is that someone who IS NOT a Hysterical Howling Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Moonbat Freak Politically Correct Trans Intellectual Anthropogenic Climate Change Weasel Obama Worshiping HITLERy Clinton Supporter? How about a verifiable definition. Hey Mr.Fake General, are you one of those loons who blames the hurricanes on President Trump?ヽ(ヅ)ノ
> Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early
> assessment of the storm.
>
> Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
> --
>
[8~{} Uncle Science Monster
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 18, 2017, 12:33:51 PM9/18/17
to
On 9/18/17 9:07 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early
> assessment of the storm.
>
> Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
>
>
Yeah. Hurricanes are related to CC. That is why the average of both
> Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early
> assessment of the storm.
>
> Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
>
>
named hurricanes and major (Cat 3 or greater) has stayed basically the
same over 48 years (1968-2016). The averages for years since Katrina
(2006 to 2016) are the same as before 2005 (when Katrina struck and we
were all told that was the new norm- 15 named hurricanes and 7 major ones).
Those saying CC is the cause also are sorta ignoring that other
factors impacting on hurricane formation including the La Nino/La Nina
happening and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation measures are in
high territory for hurricane formation as is sunspot activity (although
full disclosure requires me to say that this is a little iffy) this
year. And weren't over the last few years when we 2 storms and no major
ones in 2012, 2 and NONE in 2013, 6/2 in 14, 4/2 in 15 and 7/4 in 2016.
So, if CC was really involved, why is there such a big variation
over the years? And why has there been essentially no change in average
since 1968? And why have alternate measurements been a much better
predictor?
Stormin' Norman
Sep 18, 2017, 1:01:05 PM9/18/17
to
switched to decaf.
A. Where in my post did I mention ANYTHING about CC?
B. My comment about science deniers had to do with the science of
forecasting and the intricacies of the super computer modeling which
was referenced in the video.
If you would like to have a discussion about climate change, we can do
that, but for you to reply to my post, making assumptions and spewing
non-sequitur scientific assertions is kind of sloppy, based upon what
I have observed from you previously.
Frank
Sep 18, 2017, 1:53:28 PM9/18/17
to
hurricanes named Jose and Maria to cross our southern border. They are
welcome in our state of Delaware which considers itself a sanctuary state.
Uncle Monster
Sep 18, 2017, 2:01:40 PM9/18/17
to
[8~{} Uncle Earth Monster
Stormin' Norman
Sep 18, 2017, 2:03:57 PM9/18/17
to
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:53:24 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>
>I've been telling people that the Trump administration will not allow
>hurricanes named Jose and Maria to cross our southern border. They are
>welcome in our state of Delaware which considers itself a sanctuary state.
It is fascinating when a Trump supporter inadvertently admits that
>
>I've been telling people that the Trump administration will not allow
>hurricanes named Jose and Maria to cross our southern border. They are
>welcome in our state of Delaware which considers itself a sanctuary state.
Trump is a racist slob, even when it is done in jest.
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 18, 2017, 2:35:36 PM9/18/17
to
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:00:53 +0000, Stormin' Norman
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>B. My comment about science deniers had to do with the science of
>forecasting and the intricacies of the super computer modeling which
>was referenced in the video.
Two days out the center of the plots was 120-150 miles off on Irma and
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>B. My comment about science deniers had to do with the science of
>forecasting and the intricacies of the super computer modeling which
>was referenced in the video.
that made the difference between whether I was just going to have a
rainy day or have the eye come over my house as a Cat 3, which it did.
Science is still evolving IMHO and if you looked at the models it is
clear they were all just spit balling.
trader_4
Sep 18, 2017, 2:56:06 PM9/18/17
to
ignored it or maybe made your typical ad hominen attack. I cited
one of the great icons of conservatism, Rush Limbaugh. A few days
before Irma hit FL, as the govt was issuing evacuation instructions,
Rush was berating the weather scientists, saying that they can't
forecast where anything is going to hit until it actually does.
He said the urgent warnings were a conspiracy between the media
and big business to get people to go out and buy stuff. He implied
that people should not evacuate, saying that I can't tell anyone
what to do, but..... then he proceeded to run down the hurricane
forecasters. This was as the hurricane was already destroying the
Caribbean islands. Finally near the last day, Rush himself evacuated,
probably via his fully fueled G4, stocked with supplies and waiting
for departure on 15 mins notice. How any people in FL dumb enough
to listen to him faired, we don't know. But there are dead people,
who chose not to evacuate. And if they changed there mind when
Rush was boarding his G4, it was too late.
Now you'd think that whole thing would totally embarrass Rush,
his listeners would see him for the science denying fool he was
just days ago. But no, Rush is back on the air, now claiming
again, that the scientists had it all wrong, because they said
it would hit on the east coast of FL, instead in came inland
more over the middle or west coast! Of course the forecasts for
the east coast probability was made two or four days out. But
then Rush isn't good with math, probability or science, so he
doesn't understand the basic concepts. Or more likely, he has
some basic understanding, but wants to play his base to keep
raking in his big bucks.
The rest of us saw the forecasters very accurately predict Irma
many days in advance. They should be saluted, not torn down
and ridiculed. Rush would have you back in the days 100 years ago,
when similar storms killed thousands, because there were no forecasts.
These forecasters, using science, saved lives, yet Rush is trying
to tear them down. Now, if you can't see that as a great example
of a despicable blowhard science denier, I don't know what more we
can do for you.
Oh, and today, what's Rush bloviating about? The Emmys, how bad
the ratings were, how it was made political. Now, I'd say Rush has
a point. But to show you how uninterested in the actual facts he
is, he freely admits that he didn't watch it at all! Yet he spent
the first hour, complaining about it. That's pretty shocking and
ignorant, to go on the air for an hour, your lead story, when you
were too lazy to even watch it. If he didn't watch it, how does
he know what went on?
Rush used to have some value, but he started to go down the tubes
15 years ago. More full of himself, more bloviating without regard
to facts, and now he's become a total Trumptard. There are real
conservative issues at hand, including what Trump did with DACA,
the debt ceiling, rumblings that he's backing away now on the wall
and the Paris accords too, yet the big blowhard is talking about the
Emmys? It's an obvious attempt to keep you trumpets mesmerized
and distracted. Let's attack the media, Hillary, meterologists,
instead of talking about the real issues of the day.
Does that example of a science denier help?
Uncle Monster
Sep 18, 2017, 3:07:36 PM9/18/17
to
[8~{} Uncle Observant Monster
Stormin' Norman
Sep 18, 2017, 3:18:00 PM9/18/17
to
approaching ocean storms, let alone hurricanes, came from ships and
aircraft caught in those storms (if they weren't destroyed) and from
falling barometric pressure.
Looking back at the scientific advancements in meteorology over the
past century, the improvement is remarkable. I seriously doubt,
thanks to science and the media, the USA will ever again see the
massive hurricane death tolls like we saw in the 1915 Galveston storm
which killed 8k - 12k people.
It is a GREAT thing that science continues to evolve. That is
certainly something that can not be said of religion.
trader_4
Sep 18, 2017, 3:49:09 PM9/18/17
to
the question you posed, with an excellent example of science denial
from just last week. And that's your response. You really should just
stop, because you're doing an excellent job of discrediting the
trumpets and new alleged conservatives. It's why I see people refer
to people like you as Trumptards.
BurfordTJustice
Sep 18, 2017, 4:01:46 PM9/18/17
to
Fake news from trader again....
"trader_4" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:fbc2350f-d77c-4c3b...@googlegroups.com...
"trader_4" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:fbc2350f-d77c-4c3b...@googlegroups.com...
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 11:04:48 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:07:26 AM UTC-5, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> > Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early
> > assessment of the storm.
> >
> > Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
> > --
> >
>
> What's a "Science Denier"? Is that someone who IS NOT a Hysterical Howling
> Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Moonbat Freak Politically Correct
> Trans Intellectual Anthropogenic Climate Change Weasel Obama Worshiping
> HITLERy Clinton Supporter? How about a verifiable definition. Hey Mr.Fake
> General, are you one of those loons who blames the hurricanes on President
> Trump??(?)?
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:07:26 AM UTC-5, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> > Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early
> > assessment of the storm.
> >
> > Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
> > --
> >
>
> What's a "Science Denier"? Is that someone who IS NOT a Hysterical Howling
> Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Moonbat Freak Politically Correct
> Trans Intellectual Anthropogenic Climate Change Weasel Obama Worshiping
> HITLERy Clinton Supporter? How about a verifiable definition. Hey Mr.Fake
> General, are you one of those loons who blames the hurricanes on President
BurfordTJustice
Sep 18, 2017, 4:02:36 PM9/18/17
to
Climate Change Hype Doesn't Help
The bigger issue than global warming is that more people are choosing to
live in coastal areas.
Ryan Maue
As soon as Hurricanes Harvey and Irma made landfall in the U.S., scientists,
politicians and journalists began to discuss the role of climate change in
natural disasters. Although a clear scientific consensus has emerged over
the past decade that climate change influences hurricanes in the long run,
its effect upon any individual storm is unclear. Anyone trying to score
political points after a natural disaster should take a deep breath and
review the science first.
As a meteorologist with access to the best weather-forecast model data
available, I watched each hurricane's landfall with particular interest.
Harvey and Irma broke the record 12-year major hurricane landfall drought on
the U.S. coastline. Since Wilma in October 2005, 31 major hurricanes had
swirled in the North Atlantic but all failed to reach the U.S. with a
Category 3 or higher intensity.
Even as we worked to divine exactly where the hurricanes would land, a media
narrative began to form linking the devastating storms to climate change.
Some found it ironic that states represented by "climate deniers" were being
pummeled by hurricanes. Alarmists reveled in the irony that Houston, home to
petrochemical plants, was flooded by Harvey, while others gleefully reported
that President Trump's Mar-a-Lago might be inundated by Irma.
How to put these two hurricanes into proper context? An informative website
from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, part of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, synthesizes reams of research literature on
the links between hurricanes and global warming. Over the next century,
climate models generally indicate fewer but stronger storms-between 2% and
11% greater average storm intensity-with substantially increased rain rates.
Against the background of slow sea-level rise, explosive coastal population
growth will overwhelmingly exacerbate any hurricane's damages. In the
aggregate, the global-warming signal may just now be emerging out of our
noisy observational records, and we may not know certainly for several
decades. These conclusions are hardly controversial in the climate-science
community.
My own research, cited in a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
report, found that during the past half-century tropical storms and
hurricanes have not shown an upward trend in frequency or accumulated
energy. Instead they remain naturally variable from year-to-year. The global
prevalence of the most intense storms (Category 4 and 5) has not shown a
significant upward trend either. Historical observations of extreme cyclones
in the 1980s, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, are in sore need of
reanalysis.
By focusing on whether climate change caused a hurricane, journalists fail
to appreciate the complexity of extreme weather events. While most details
are still hazy with the best climate modeling tools, the bigger issue than
global warming is that more people are choosing to live in coastal areas,
where hurricanes certainly will be most destructive.
The nascent field of "attribution science" attempts to explain how climate
change may affect characteristics of a given hurricane using models in "what
if" mode. Such research requires a faithful reproduction of events and
predictions of the future constrained by subjective choices within computer
models. This research also takes time-which means other scientists must
examine the evidence with patience and judiciousness not usually seen on
Twitter or cable news.
Still, the scientific community already knows plenty about hurricanes and
climate change-knowledge it has accumulated over two decades through
peer-reviewed research, academic conferences and voluminous national and
international assessments. Yet climate scientists all too often speculate
during interviews rather than refer to IPCC reports or their cousins from
the U.S. National Climate Assessment. Some climate scientists have peddled
tenuous theories with no contemporaneous research evidence. Advocacy groups
package these talking points for easy consumption by journalists, who
eagerly repeat them.
The historical record books contain dozens of devastating hurricane
landfalls over the past century, any of which, if repeated, would be
catastrophic regardless of additional climate-change effects. To prepare for
the next hurricane, the U.S. needs the best weather forecasts, evacuation
plans and leadership. These plans should be built on sound science, not
speculation, overselling or exaggeration. Hurricane science in this
political climate already has enough spin.
Mr. Maue, a research meteorologist, is an adjunct scholar at the Cato
Institute.
"Stormin' Norman" <nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote in message
news:32hvrcp80udr918jl...@4ax.com...
The bigger issue than global warming is that more people are choosing to
live in coastal areas.
Ryan Maue
As soon as Hurricanes Harvey and Irma made landfall in the U.S., scientists,
politicians and journalists began to discuss the role of climate change in
natural disasters. Although a clear scientific consensus has emerged over
the past decade that climate change influences hurricanes in the long run,
its effect upon any individual storm is unclear. Anyone trying to score
political points after a natural disaster should take a deep breath and
review the science first.
As a meteorologist with access to the best weather-forecast model data
available, I watched each hurricane's landfall with particular interest.
Harvey and Irma broke the record 12-year major hurricane landfall drought on
the U.S. coastline. Since Wilma in October 2005, 31 major hurricanes had
swirled in the North Atlantic but all failed to reach the U.S. with a
Category 3 or higher intensity.
Even as we worked to divine exactly where the hurricanes would land, a media
narrative began to form linking the devastating storms to climate change.
Some found it ironic that states represented by "climate deniers" were being
pummeled by hurricanes. Alarmists reveled in the irony that Houston, home to
petrochemical plants, was flooded by Harvey, while others gleefully reported
that President Trump's Mar-a-Lago might be inundated by Irma.
How to put these two hurricanes into proper context? An informative website
from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, part of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, synthesizes reams of research literature on
the links between hurricanes and global warming. Over the next century,
climate models generally indicate fewer but stronger storms-between 2% and
11% greater average storm intensity-with substantially increased rain rates.
Against the background of slow sea-level rise, explosive coastal population
growth will overwhelmingly exacerbate any hurricane's damages. In the
aggregate, the global-warming signal may just now be emerging out of our
noisy observational records, and we may not know certainly for several
decades. These conclusions are hardly controversial in the climate-science
community.
My own research, cited in a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
report, found that during the past half-century tropical storms and
hurricanes have not shown an upward trend in frequency or accumulated
energy. Instead they remain naturally variable from year-to-year. The global
prevalence of the most intense storms (Category 4 and 5) has not shown a
significant upward trend either. Historical observations of extreme cyclones
in the 1980s, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, are in sore need of
reanalysis.
By focusing on whether climate change caused a hurricane, journalists fail
to appreciate the complexity of extreme weather events. While most details
are still hazy with the best climate modeling tools, the bigger issue than
global warming is that more people are choosing to live in coastal areas,
where hurricanes certainly will be most destructive.
The nascent field of "attribution science" attempts to explain how climate
change may affect characteristics of a given hurricane using models in "what
if" mode. Such research requires a faithful reproduction of events and
predictions of the future constrained by subjective choices within computer
models. This research also takes time-which means other scientists must
examine the evidence with patience and judiciousness not usually seen on
Twitter or cable news.
Still, the scientific community already knows plenty about hurricanes and
climate change-knowledge it has accumulated over two decades through
peer-reviewed research, academic conferences and voluminous national and
international assessments. Yet climate scientists all too often speculate
during interviews rather than refer to IPCC reports or their cousins from
the U.S. National Climate Assessment. Some climate scientists have peddled
tenuous theories with no contemporaneous research evidence. Advocacy groups
package these talking points for easy consumption by journalists, who
eagerly repeat them.
The historical record books contain dozens of devastating hurricane
landfalls over the past century, any of which, if repeated, would be
catastrophic regardless of additional climate-change effects. To prepare for
the next hurricane, the U.S. needs the best weather forecasts, evacuation
plans and leadership. These plans should be built on sound science, not
speculation, overselling or exaggeration. Hurricane science in this
political climate already has enough spin.
Mr. Maue, a research meteorologist, is an adjunct scholar at the Cato
Institute.
"Stormin' Norman" <nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote in message
news:32hvrcp80udr918jl...@4ax.com...
BurfordTJustice
Sep 18, 2017, 4:02:41 PM9/18/17
to
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 11:04:48 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:07:26 AM UTC-5, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> > Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early
> > assessment of the storm.
> >
> > Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
> > --
> >
>
> What's a "Science Denier"? Is that someone who IS NOT a Hysterical Howling
> Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Moonbat Freak Politically Correct
> Trans Intellectual Anthropogenic Climate Change Weasel Obama Worshiping
> HITLERy Clinton Supporter? How about a verifiable definition. Hey Mr.Fake
> General, are you one of those loons who blames the hurricanes on President
> Trump??(?)?
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:07:26 AM UTC-5, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> > Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early
> > assessment of the storm.
> >
> > Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
> > --
> >
>
> What's a "Science Denier"? Is that someone who IS NOT a Hysterical Howling
> Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Moonbat Freak Politically Correct
> Trans Intellectual Anthropogenic Climate Change Weasel Obama Worshiping
> HITLERy Clinton Supporter? How about a verifiable definition. Hey Mr.Fake
> General, are you one of those loons who blames the hurricanes on President
BurfordTJustice
Sep 18, 2017, 4:02:48 PM9/18/17
to
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 3:07:36 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 1:56:06 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
> > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 11:04:48 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:07:26 AM UTC-5, Stormin' Norman
> > > wrote:
> > > > Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early
> > > > assessment of the storm.
> > > >
> > > > Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
> > > > --
> > > >
> > >
> > > What's a "Science Denier"? Is that someone who IS NOT a Hysterical
> > > Howling Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Moonbat Freak
> > > Politically Correct Trans Intellectual Anthropogenic Climate Change
> > > Weasel Obama Worshiping HITLERy Clinton Supporter? How about a
> > > verifiable definition. Hey Mr.Fake General, are you one of those loons
> > > who blames the hurricanes on President Trump??(?)?
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 1:56:06 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
> > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 11:04:48 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:07:26 AM UTC-5, Stormin' Norman
> > > wrote:
> > > > Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting early
> > > > assessment of the storm.
> > > >
> > > > Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
> > > > --
> > > >
> > >
> > > What's a "Science Denier"? Is that someone who IS NOT a Hysterical
> > > Howling Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Moonbat Freak
> > > Politically Correct Trans Intellectual Anthropogenic Climate Change
> > > Weasel Obama Worshiping HITLERy Clinton Supporter? How about a
> > > verifiable definition. Hey Mr.Fake General, are you one of those loons
trader_4
Sep 18, 2017, 4:16:38 PM9/18/17
to
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 3:18:00 PM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:35:24 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:00:53 +0000, Stormin' Norman
> ><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>B. My comment about science deniers had to do with the science of
> >>forecasting and the intricacies of the super computer modeling which
> >>was referenced in the video.
> >
> >Two days out the center of the plots was 120-150 miles off on Irma and
> >that made the difference between whether I was just going to have a
> >rainy day or have the eye come over my house as a Cat 3, which it did.
> >Science is still evolving IMHO and if you looked at the models it is
> >clear they were all just spit balling.
>
> It is all relative, it was during my lifetime that the only warning of
> approaching ocean storms, let alone hurricanes, came from ships and
> aircraft caught in those storms (if they weren't destroyed) and from
> falling barometric pressure.
+1
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:35:24 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:00:53 +0000, Stormin' Norman
> ><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>B. My comment about science deniers had to do with the science of
> >>forecasting and the intricacies of the super computer modeling which
> >>was referenced in the video.
> >
> >Two days out the center of the plots was 120-150 miles off on Irma and
> >that made the difference between whether I was just going to have a
> >rainy day or have the eye come over my house as a Cat 3, which it did.
> >Science is still evolving IMHO and if you looked at the models it is
> >clear they were all just spit balling.
>
> It is all relative, it was during my lifetime that the only warning of
> approaching ocean storms, let alone hurricanes, came from ships and
> aircraft caught in those storms (if they weren't destroyed) and from
> falling barometric pressure.
Here is the forecast from 8 days before it made landfall on FL,
the models show it headed right for it.
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/postandcourier.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/2a/22a741ac-9029-11e7-8f2a-f308e4ea75ee/59ab28bc48680.image.jpg
Here it is 4 days out, clearly centered on FL.
https://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/irma-track-2.png
Here it is 3 days out, clearly centered on FL.
https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/irma-9-71.png?w=647&h=531
IDK what better forecasting than that can be expected. The probability
windows narrow, the forecasts become more accurate the more time goes
on. But you can't have millions of people waiting until the last
hours to evacuate. Unless you have your G4 waiting, like Rush.
I'm also not sure that characterizing it as the center of the plots
was 120 to 150 miles off is correct. The forecast is that all the
areas in the cone are at risk because we are dealing wit probabilities
and exactly where it will hit won't be known until it hits. This
was a powerful storm, hundreds of miles wide, the center missed many
people by that much and there was still flooding, destruction, tornadoes, etc.
>
> Looking back at the scientific advancements in meteorology over the
> past century, the improvement is remarkable. I seriously doubt,
> thanks to science and the media, the USA will ever again see the
> massive hurricane death tolls like we saw in the 1915 Galveston storm
> which killed 8k - 12k people.
>
> It is a GREAT thing that science continues to evolve. That is
> certainly something that can not be said of religion.
>
>
But now they complain that two days before the models had the probability
centered right on the east coast of FL, but it wound up on the west coast,
inland a bit. And of course if you waited, 36 hours, 24 hours, the
margin of uncertainty continued to decrease. Those forecasts look very
good to me. Eight days out they had it aimed at most of FL, and that's
what it hit, from Key West up to the Georgia border.
BurfordTJustice
Sep 18, 2017, 5:06:32 PM9/18/17
to
Uncle Monster
Sep 18, 2017, 6:51:56 PM9/18/17
to
[8~{} Uncle Observant Monster
trader_4
Sep 18, 2017, 8:13:47 PM9/18/17
to
honest answer in a few paragraphs. You claim that's a "word wall".
Providing an answer to questions is how people communicate, discuss
issues, convince people of their arguments, advance their cause. Obviously
anything that challenges any of your preconceived notions you just
won't even look at. It's not a surprise at this point. As for what people
don't read, I'd suggest it's your silly ad hominem attacks, which are the
only responses you have, to anything anymore. And those ad hominems
are your response to a post whether it's one sentence or a few paragraphs.
It's not the number of words, it's that you've closed your mind to
anything that doesn't conform to your view. What little fact those
views are based on, we'll never know, because I suspect you closed
your mind a long, long time ago. You stopped learning. And then you
ask what a science denier is? You've gone way beyond just denying
science, you just deny everything that you don't want to hear,
anything that you'd have to think about.
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 18, 2017, 8:51:41 PM9/18/17
to
On 9/18/17 1:00 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:33:40 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Kurt, I suspect you have either not had your coffee or have recently
> switched to decaf.
>
Actually neither. It is a knee jerk reaction to the Deniers part.
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:33:40 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Kurt, I suspect you have either not had your coffee or have recently
> switched to decaf.
>
Took context and ran with it whether it was correct or not. Mea culpa
>
Stormin' Norman
Sep 18, 2017, 9:00:26 PM9/18/17
to
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
>>
>>
>> So typical of you Libtards, Obamanaughts and HITLERyettes. What you don't seem to comprehend is that no one, not even me reads your word walls. If you can't get your point across in a short paragraph or two, it's pointless! My question wasn't even directed at you. It was posed to über Liberal Leftist troll the fake general. Poor Traitor_4ever, you just don't get it. ?(?)?
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> [8~{} Uncle Observant Monster
>
>You ask a question, I took it seriously, took the time to give you an
>honest answer in a few paragraphs. You claim that's a "word wall".
>Providing an answer to questions is how people communicate, discuss
>issues, convince people of their arguments, advance their cause. Obviously
>anything that challenges any of your preconceived notions you just
>won't even look at. It's not a surprise at this point. As for what people
>don't read, I'd suggest it's your silly ad hominem attacks, which are the
>only responses you have, to anything anymore. And those ad hominems
>are your response to a post whether it's one sentence or a few paragraphs.
>It's not the number of words, it's that you've closed your mind to
>anything that doesn't conform to your view. What little fact those
>views are based on, we'll never know, because I suspect you closed
>your mind a long, long time ago. You stopped learning. And then you
>ask what a science denier is? You've gone way beyond just denying
>science, you just deny everything that you don't want to hear,
>anything that you'd have to think about.
Attention-deficit disorder and or, he doesn't have the intelligence to
>> [8~{} Uncle Observant Monster
>
>You ask a question, I took it seriously, took the time to give you an
>honest answer in a few paragraphs. You claim that's a "word wall".
>Providing an answer to questions is how people communicate, discuss
>issues, convince people of their arguments, advance their cause. Obviously
>anything that challenges any of your preconceived notions you just
>won't even look at. It's not a surprise at this point. As for what people
>don't read, I'd suggest it's your silly ad hominem attacks, which are the
>only responses you have, to anything anymore. And those ad hominems
>are your response to a post whether it's one sentence or a few paragraphs.
>It's not the number of words, it's that you've closed your mind to
>anything that doesn't conform to your view. What little fact those
>views are based on, we'll never know, because I suspect you closed
>your mind a long, long time ago. You stopped learning. And then you
>ask what a science denier is? You've gone way beyond just denying
>science, you just deny everything that you don't want to hear,
>anything that you'd have to think about.
comprehend more than 25 written words at a time.
When his replies exceed more than a few words, he begins to write like
someone with Tourette Syndrome speaks.
Uncle Monster
Sep 18, 2017, 9:10:34 PM9/18/17
to
[8~{} Uncle Compassionate Monster
Stormin' Norman
Sep 18, 2017, 9:12:32 PM9/18/17
to
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 20:51:26 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
By the way, the one thing you didn't consider with regard to
hurricanes has been their size. The categorization system is almost
completely dependent on wind speed.
If one considers the severity of a cat 3 storm that is 300 miles in
diameter compared to the severity of a cat 3 storm that is 700 miles
in diameter, it is obvious the categorization system currently in use
is sorely lacking.
I have not done the research, but it would be interesting to evaluate
not only the categorization, but also the size, amount of moisture
released, total energy released (wind and electrical) duration and
frequency of such storms on a year by year basis for as long as such
records have been kept.
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 9/18/17 1:00 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:33:40 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
>> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Kurt, I suspect you have either not had your coffee or have recently
>> switched to decaf.
>>
> Actually neither. It is a knee jerk reaction to the Deniers part.
>Took context and ran with it whether it was correct or not. Mea culpa
No sweat.
>On 9/18/17 1:00 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:33:40 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
>> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Kurt, I suspect you have either not had your coffee or have recently
>> switched to decaf.
>>
> Actually neither. It is a knee jerk reaction to the Deniers part.
>Took context and ran with it whether it was correct or not. Mea culpa
By the way, the one thing you didn't consider with regard to
hurricanes has been their size. The categorization system is almost
completely dependent on wind speed.
If one considers the severity of a cat 3 storm that is 300 miles in
diameter compared to the severity of a cat 3 storm that is 700 miles
in diameter, it is obvious the categorization system currently in use
is sorely lacking.
I have not done the research, but it would be interesting to evaluate
not only the categorization, but also the size, amount of moisture
released, total energy released (wind and electrical) duration and
frequency of such storms on a year by year basis for as long as such
records have been kept.
Wally
Sep 18, 2017, 9:29:25 PM9/18/17
to
On 09/18/2017 09:12 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> If one considers the severity of a cat 3 storm that is 300 miles in
> diameter compared to the severity of a cat 3 storm that is 700 miles
> in diameter, it is obvious the categorization system currently in use
> is sorely lacking.
Maybe rate the hurricanes based on how many trailer houses they flatten?
> If one considers the severity of a cat 3 storm that is 300 miles in
> diameter compared to the severity of a cat 3 storm that is 700 miles
> in diameter, it is obvious the categorization system currently in use
> is sorely lacking.
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 19, 2017, 1:50:09 AM9/19/17
to
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:17:51 +0000, Stormin' Norman
one to be political footballs and they both are.
Unpopular science does not get funded and unreligious candidates do
not get elected.
As far as global warming goes, no politically aware scientist will
admit the problem is not the fuel we use, it is the number of people
on the planet. The CO2 hockey stick looks exactly like the population
hockey stick and that is undeniable. Just look. You just do not hear
anyone say it. If you want to cut CO2 levels, scrub a few billion off
the population and reforest/turf the land we have cleared to feed
them.
Making us all live like the 3d world will not help.
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:35:24 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:00:53 +0000, Stormin' Norman
>><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>B. My comment about science deniers had to do with the science of
>>>forecasting and the intricacies of the super computer modeling which
>>>was referenced in the video.
>>
>>Two days out the center of the plots was 120-150 miles off on Irma and
>>that made the difference between whether I was just going to have a
>>rainy day or have the eye come over my house as a Cat 3, which it did.
>>Science is still evolving IMHO and if you looked at the models it is
>>clear they were all just spit balling.
>
>It is all relative, it was during my lifetime that the only warning of
>approaching ocean storms, let alone hurricanes, came from ships and
>aircraft caught in those storms (if they weren't destroyed) and from
>falling barometric pressure.
>
>Looking back at the scientific advancements in meteorology over the
>past century, the improvement is remarkable. I seriously doubt,
>thanks to science and the media, the USA will ever again see the
>massive hurricane death tolls like we saw in the 1915 Galveston storm
>which killed 8k - 12k people.
>
>It is a GREAT thing that science continues to evolve. That is
>certainly something that can not be said of religion.
I have no problem with science or religion but I do not want either
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:35:24 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:00:53 +0000, Stormin' Norman
>><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>B. My comment about science deniers had to do with the science of
>>>forecasting and the intricacies of the super computer modeling which
>>>was referenced in the video.
>>
>>Two days out the center of the plots was 120-150 miles off on Irma and
>>that made the difference between whether I was just going to have a
>>rainy day or have the eye come over my house as a Cat 3, which it did.
>>Science is still evolving IMHO and if you looked at the models it is
>>clear they were all just spit balling.
>
>It is all relative, it was during my lifetime that the only warning of
>approaching ocean storms, let alone hurricanes, came from ships and
>aircraft caught in those storms (if they weren't destroyed) and from
>falling barometric pressure.
>
>Looking back at the scientific advancements in meteorology over the
>past century, the improvement is remarkable. I seriously doubt,
>thanks to science and the media, the USA will ever again see the
>massive hurricane death tolls like we saw in the 1915 Galveston storm
>which killed 8k - 12k people.
>
>It is a GREAT thing that science continues to evolve. That is
>certainly something that can not be said of religion.
one to be political footballs and they both are.
Unpopular science does not get funded and unreligious candidates do
not get elected.
As far as global warming goes, no politically aware scientist will
admit the problem is not the fuel we use, it is the number of people
on the planet. The CO2 hockey stick looks exactly like the population
hockey stick and that is undeniable. Just look. You just do not hear
anyone say it. If you want to cut CO2 levels, scrub a few billion off
the population and reforest/turf the land we have cleared to feed
them.
Making us all live like the 3d world will not help.
Uncle Monster
Sep 19, 2017, 2:22:24 AM9/19/17
to
[8~{} Uncle Carbon Monster
BurfordTJustice
Sep 19, 2017, 6:28:00 AM9/19/17
to
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 2:49:09 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
> > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 3:07:36 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 1:56:06 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 11:04:48 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:07:26 AM UTC-5, Stormin' Norman
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting
> > > > > > early
> > > > > > assessment of the storm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
> > > > > > --
> > > > > What's a "Science Denier"? Is that someone who IS NOT a Hysterical
> > > > > Howling Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Moonbat Freak
> > > > > Politically Correct Trans Intellectual Anthropogenic Climate
> > > > > Change Weasel Obama Worshiping HITLERy Clinton Supporter? How
> > > > > about a verifiable definition. Hey Mr.Fake General, are you one of
> > > > > those loons who blames the hurricanes on President Trump??(?)?
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 2:49:09 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
> > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 3:07:36 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 1:56:06 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 11:04:48 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:07:26 AM UTC-5, Stormin' Norman
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Nothing is cast in stone as of yet, but this is an interesting
> > > > > > early
> > > > > > assessment of the storm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Science deniers should consider this to be rated "X"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/americas/atlantic-storms-maria-jose-lee/index.html
> > > > > > --
> > > > > What's a "Science Denier"? Is that someone who IS NOT a Hysterical
> > > > > Howling Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Moonbat Freak
> > > > > Politically Correct Trans Intellectual Anthropogenic Climate
> > > > > Change Weasel Obama Worshiping HITLERy Clinton Supporter? How
> > > > > about a verifiable definition. Hey Mr.Fake General, are you one of
> > >
> > > [8~{} Uncle Observant Monster
> >
> > So typical and expected. I gave you a reasoned, thought out answer to
> > the question you posed, with an excellent example of science denial
> > from just last week. And that's your response. You really should just
> > stop, because you're doing an excellent job of discrediting the
> > trumpets and new alleged conservatives. It's why I see people refer
> > to people like you as Trumptards.
>
>
> So typical of you Libtards, Obamanaughts and HITLERyettes. What you don't
> seem to comprehend is that no one, not even me reads your word walls. If
> you can't get your point across in a short paragraph or two, it's
> pointless! My question wasn't even directed at you. It was posed to über
> Liberal Leftist troll the fake general. Poor Traitor_4ever, you just don't
> get it. ?(?)?
> > > [8~{} Uncle Observant Monster
> >
> > So typical and expected. I gave you a reasoned, thought out answer to
> > the question you posed, with an excellent example of science denial
> > from just last week. And that's your response. You really should just
> > stop, because you're doing an excellent job of discrediting the
> > trumpets and new alleged conservatives. It's why I see people refer
> > to people like you as Trumptards.
>
>
> So typical of you Libtards, Obamanaughts and HITLERyettes. What you don't
> seem to comprehend is that no one, not even me reads your word walls. If
> you can't get your point across in a short paragraph or two, it's
> pointless! My question wasn't even directed at you. It was posed to über
> Liberal Leftist troll the fake general. Poor Traitor_4ever, you just don't
BurfordTJustice
Sep 19, 2017, 6:28:17 AM9/19/17
to
"Stormin' Norman" <nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote in message
news:uaq0sctrenmed4o76...@4ax.com...
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 19, 2017, 8:30:50 AM9/19/17
to
On 9/18/17 9:12 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>
>
>
> I have not done the research, but it would be interesting to evaluate
> not only the categorization, but also the size, amount of moisture
> released, total energy released (wind and electrical) duration and
> frequency of such storms on a year by year basis for as long as such
> records have been kept.
>
>
The chart that I used for my diatribe includes accumulate cyclonic
>
>
>
> I have not done the research, but it would be interesting to evaluate
> not only the categorization, but also the size, amount of moisture
> released, total energy released (wind and electrical) duration and
> frequency of such storms on a year by year basis for as long as such
> records have been kept.
>
>
energy. Is a seasonal measure combining the number of systems, how long
they lasted, and how intense they became,which probably talks to most of
your concerns.
This remains roughly the same over the last 11 years as compared to
the 1968-2016 average. I figured the average ACE/storm and that has
actually gone down from 8.08 during the entire time to 6.96 over the
last 11 years. The standard deviation of all measures are really high,
most around half of the average, so there is a LOT of scatter. (The ACE
calculations were for ALL named storms including tropical storms
hurricanes and subtropical storms. The rest were just hurricanes.)
Stormin' Norman
Sep 19, 2017, 8:35:15 AM9/19/17
to
referenced?
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 19, 2017, 9:32:53 AM9/19/17
to
On 9/19/17 8:35 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:30:39 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/18/17 9:12 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have not done the research, but it would be interesting to evaluate
>>> not only the categorization, but also the size, amount of moisture
>>> released, total energy released (wind and electrical) duration and
>>> frequency of such storms on a year by year basis for as long as such
>>> records have been kept.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The chart that I used for my diatribe includes accumulate cyclonic
>> energy. Is a seasonal measure combining the number of systems, how long
>> they lasted, and how intense they became,which probably talks to most of
>> your concerns.
>> This remains roughly the same over the last 11 years as compared to
>> the 1968-2016 average. I figured the average ACE/storm and that has
>> actually gone down from 8.08 during the entire time to 6.96 over the
>> last 11 years. The standard deviation of all measures are really high,
>> most around half of the average, so there is a LOT of scatter. (The ACE
>> calculations were for ALL named storms including tropical storms
>> hurricanes and subtropical storms. The rest were just hurricanes.)
>
> Would you please provide a link to the chart and associated study you
> referenced?
>
>
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:30:39 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/18/17 9:12 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have not done the research, but it would be interesting to evaluate
>>> not only the categorization, but also the size, amount of moisture
>>> released, total energy released (wind and electrical) duration and
>>> frequency of such storms on a year by year basis for as long as such
>>> records have been kept.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The chart that I used for my diatribe includes accumulate cyclonic
>> energy. Is a seasonal measure combining the number of systems, how long
>> they lasted, and how intense they became,which probably talks to most of
>> your concerns.
>> This remains roughly the same over the last 11 years as compared to
>> the 1968-2016 average. I figured the average ACE/storm and that has
>> actually gone down from 8.08 during the entire time to 6.96 over the
>> last 11 years. The standard deviation of all measures are really high,
>> most around half of the average, so there is a LOT of scatter. (The ACE
>> calculations were for ALL named storms including tropical storms
>> hurricanes and subtropical storms. The rest were just hurricanes.)
>
> Would you please provide a link to the chart and associated study you
> referenced?
>
>
Hurricane Research Div, NOAA.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 19, 2017, 9:38:13 AM9/19/17
to
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 01:49:58 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>I have no problem with science or religion but I do not want either
>one to be political footballs and they both are.
>Unpopular science does not get funded and unreligious candidates do
>not get elected.
>As far as global warming goes, no politically aware scientist will
>admit the problem is not the fuel we use, it is the number of people
>on the planet. The CO2 hockey stick looks exactly like the population
>hockey stick and that is undeniable. Just look. You just do not hear
>anyone say it. If you want to cut CO2 levels, scrub a few billion off
>the population and reforest/turf the land we have cleared to feed
>them.
>Making us all live like the 3d world will not help.
1. How would you propose scrubbing "a few billion people" off the
>
>I have no problem with science or religion but I do not want either
>one to be political footballs and they both are.
>Unpopular science does not get funded and unreligious candidates do
>not get elected.
>As far as global warming goes, no politically aware scientist will
>admit the problem is not the fuel we use, it is the number of people
>on the planet. The CO2 hockey stick looks exactly like the population
>hockey stick and that is undeniable. Just look. You just do not hear
>anyone say it. If you want to cut CO2 levels, scrub a few billion off
>the population and reforest/turf the land we have cleared to feed
>them.
>Making us all live like the 3d world will not help.
planet? Genocide? Forced birth control? Public information campaigns
in China, India, etc?
2. Science and religion are part of human society and will always be
part of politics as long as both exist and society embraces
democracy. You might not like it, but there you have it.
3. As for your comment about it not being the fuel, but the number of
people. That reminds me of the arguments about obesity and guns. It's
not the food, it's how much is consumed or, guns don't kill people,
people kill people.
On the surface, the three arguments seem reasonably, but when
scrutinized and carefully evaluated, they are specious. Fossil and
other organic fuels are expedient and initially inexpensive, but,
technical sources are far more logical and less harmful to all aspects
of the environment.
Even if the world population were only 2 billion people; fusion,
solar, tidal, and wind energy are far superior technologies. It makes
no sense to plan on burning and emitting, as the dominant source of
societal energy, when science and technology is making such rapid
advances in renewable energy. Poisoning the planet more slowly,
because of a fictional smaller population, is still poisoning the
planet. Additionally, the issue isn't just climate change, but
environmental damage as well.
Lockheed Martin's, Advanced Development Programs (a.k.a. The
Skunkworks), is feverishly developing a compact fusion reactor. See:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
Yes, we as a society could try to change the human desire and instinct
to procreate, we could be draconian and commit genocide against yellow
and brown people, we could sterilize Trump-like mentality inhabitants,
or, we can move forward, develop new and better technologies in an
effort to accommodate all.
I do agree that ultimately, population is an issue that must be dealt
with and I do not have any reasonable, practical or moral solutions to
that issue. Do you?
trader_4
Sep 19, 2017, 12:20:57 PM9/19/17
to
Not just CO2 is linked to it, but so too is all pollution, the
rapid reduction of rain forest, etc. A big part of the problem
is the world's govt rely on unchecked population growth to fund
their govt spending. In the USA if population growth declined,
the national debt and social security underfunding would get
proportionality worse. The only country that did try to address
aFAIK was China.
trader_4
Sep 19, 2017, 12:44:14 PM9/19/17
to
On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:38:13 AM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 01:49:58 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >I have no problem with science or religion but I do not want either
> >one to be political footballs and they both are.
> >Unpopular science does not get funded and unreligious candidates do
> >not get elected.
> >As far as global warming goes, no politically aware scientist will
> >admit the problem is not the fuel we use, it is the number of people
> >on the planet. The CO2 hockey stick looks exactly like the population
> >hockey stick and that is undeniable. Just look. You just do not hear
> >anyone say it. If you want to cut CO2 levels, scrub a few billion off
> >the population and reforest/turf the land we have cleared to feed
> >them.
> >Making us all live like the 3d world will not help.
>
> 1. How would you propose scrubbing "a few billion people" off the
> planet? Genocide? Forced birth control? Public information campaigns
> in China, India, etc?
We could start by replacing a tax policy that encourages having
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 01:49:58 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >I have no problem with science or religion but I do not want either
> >one to be political footballs and they both are.
> >Unpopular science does not get funded and unreligious candidates do
> >not get elected.
> >As far as global warming goes, no politically aware scientist will
> >admit the problem is not the fuel we use, it is the number of people
> >on the planet. The CO2 hockey stick looks exactly like the population
> >hockey stick and that is undeniable. Just look. You just do not hear
> >anyone say it. If you want to cut CO2 levels, scrub a few billion off
> >the population and reforest/turf the land we have cleared to feed
> >them.
> >Making us all live like the 3d world will not help.
>
> 1. How would you propose scrubbing "a few billion people" off the
> planet? Genocide? Forced birth control? Public information campaigns
> in China, India, etc?
more kids with one that does not. Same thing with the welfare
policy. The more kids you have, the more welfare you get. If you're
an illegal, you can't get welfare, but if you have 4 kids, they can.
>
> 2. Science and religion are part of human society and will always be
> part of politics as long as both exist and society embraces
> democracy. You might not like it, but there you have it.
>
> 3. As for your comment about it not being the fuel, but the number of
> people. That reminds me of the arguments about obesity and guns. It's
> not the food, it's how much is consumed or, guns don't kill people,
> people kill people.
>
> On the surface, the three arguments seem reasonably, but when
> scrutinized and carefully evaluated, they are specious. Fossil and
> other organic fuels are expedient and initially inexpensive, but,
> technical sources are far more logical and less harmful to all aspects
> of the environment.
and similar being cut down all over the world which is fueled by human
expansion, for example. It's not going to replace the species being
wiped out as they continue to lose their habitat. Why does the population
have to continue to grow and what's wrong with trying to take steps
to deal with it?
>
> Even if the world population were only 2 billion people; fusion,
> solar, tidal, and wind energy are far superior technologies. It makes
> no sense to plan on burning and emitting, as the dominant source of
> societal energy, when science and technology is making such rapid
> advances in renewable energy. Poisoning the planet more slowly,
> because of a fictional smaller population, is still poisoning the
> planet.
slowed, or stopped, it would not be fictional, anymore than any
other possible way of reducing pollution. And saying we're still
poisoning the planet, you could say that about anything, like
reducing pollution from autos, they are still polluting, so why
bother?
Additionally, the issue isn't just climate change, but
> environmental damage as well.
>
> Lockheed Martin's, Advanced Development Programs (a.k.a. The
> Skunkworks), is feverishly developing a compact fusion reactor. See:
>
> http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
kind of fusion reactor, never mind a compact one.
"This concept uses a high fraction of the magnetic field pressure, or all of its potential, so we can make our devices 10 times smaller than previous concepts. That means we can replace a device that must be housed in a large building with one that can fit on the back of a truck.concepts.
ROFL. There is nothing to replace! It's taken 40 years and billions
to create whole factory size devices to just demonstrate breakeven
energy output, or a bit beyond, for a nanosecond. No one has shown
anything anywhere close to being capable of generating commercial
power. And that's not even with taking cost into account. With billions
poured into it, we haven't generated the first kilowatt hour of power,
at any cost.
"The smaller the size of the device, the easier it is to build up momentum and develop it faster. Instead of taking five years to design and build a concept, it takes only a few months. If we undergo a few of these testing and refinement cycles, we will be able to develop a prototype within the same five year timespan."
It's never been the size of the device. Do they think all the world's
scientists never thought that, gee if we make it smaller it will work?
Building small things fast doesn't solve the inherent physics and
engineering problems that everyone has known about for 40 years and
so far, no one has a solution.
I'd say this is probably an example of what you get when there are
govt funds being handed out. This almost certainly is federally
funded and Lockheed will do anything as long as the govt funds it,
no matter if it makes sense or not. They need some angle, they
found it, they got someone to fund it.
>
> Yes, we as a society could try to change the human desire and instinct
> to procreate, we could be draconian and commit genocide against yellow
> and brown people, we could sterilize Trump-like mentality inhabitants,
> or, we can move forward, develop new and better technologies in an
> effort to accommodate all.
you turn it into genocide?
Stormin' Norman
Sep 19, 2017, 2:17:31 PM9/19/17
to
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:44:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> 1. How would you propose scrubbing "a few billion people" off the
>> planet? Genocide? Forced birth control? Public information campaigns
>> in China, India, etc?
>
>
>We could start by replacing a tax policy that encourages having
>more kids with one that does not. Same thing with the welfare
>policy. The more kids you have, the more welfare you get. If you're
>an illegal, you can't get welfare, but if you have 4 kids, they can.
>
>
Your tax policy changes are USA centric, which is the third most
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> 1. How would you propose scrubbing "a few billion people" off the
>> planet? Genocide? Forced birth control? Public information campaigns
>> in China, India, etc?
>
>
>We could start by replacing a tax policy that encourages having
>more kids with one that does not. Same thing with the welfare
>policy. The more kids you have, the more welfare you get. If you're
>an illegal, you can't get welfare, but if you have 4 kids, they can.
>
>
populace nation on the planet with approximately 330 million people.
How would you propose dealing with countries like:
China - 1,379,302,771
India - 1,281,935,911
Indonesia - 260,580,739
Brazil - 207,353,391
Pakistan - 204,924,861
Nigeria - 190,632,26
Bangladesh - 157,826,578
>>
>> Even if the world population were only 2 billion people; fusion,
>> solar, tidal, and wind energy are far superior technologies. It makes
>> no sense to plan on burning and emitting, as the dominant source of
>> societal energy, when science and technology is making such rapid
>> advances in renewable energy. Poisoning the planet more slowly,
>> because of a fictional smaller population, is still poisoning the
>> planet.
>
>That makes no sense. What's fictional?
purposely accomplished and has certainly not happened at all in the
past 1400 years or longer.
>If population growth was
>slowed, or stopped, it would not be fictional, anymore than any
human population of the planet declined?
>other possible way of reducing pollution. And saying we're still
>poisoning the planet, you could say that about anything, like
>reducing pollution from autos, they are still polluting, so why
>bother?
>
>
>
>Additionally, the issue isn't just climate change, but
>> environmental damage as well.
>>
>> Lockheed Martin's, Advanced Development Programs (a.k.a. The
>> Skunkworks), is feverishly developing a compact fusion reactor. See:
>>
>> http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
>
>
>Good grief, we have been trying for 40+ years to develop *any*
>kind of fusion reactor, never mind a compact one.
>
means, fusion power is an impossibility........ ;-)
>>
>> Yes, we as a society could try to change the human desire and instinct
>> to procreate, we could be draconian and commit genocide against yellow
>> and brown people, we could sterilize Trump-like mentality inhabitants,
>> or, we can move forward, develop new and better technologies in an
>> effort to accommodate all.
>
>
>Oh please, stop the drama. Gfre made a very reasonable comment and
>you turn it into genocide?
My question as to how anyone proposes to reduce the human population
of the planet, which is something that has never been purposely
accomplished by society, is a reasonable one. Just as the possible
options I listed are not outside the experience of human history.
Reducing the world population is a lofty and worthwhile goal, to be
sure, but, tell me how you propose to accomplish such reductions in
places and societies such as China, India, Pakistan and Brazil? be
specific, please.
trader_4
Sep 19, 2017, 2:41:06 PM9/19/17
to
On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 2:17:31 PM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:44:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> 1. How would you propose scrubbing "a few billion people" off the
> >> planet? Genocide? Forced birth control? Public information campaigns
> >> in China, India, etc?
> >
> >
> >We could start by replacing a tax policy that encourages having
> >more kids with one that does not. Same thing with the welfare
> >policy. The more kids you have, the more welfare you get. If you're
> >an illegal, you can't get welfare, but if you have 4 kids, they can.
> >
> >
>
> Your tax policy changes are USA centric, which is the third most
> populace nation on the planet with approximately 330 million people.
> How would you propose dealing with countries like:
>
> China - 1,379,302,771
> India - 1,281,935,911
> Indonesia - 260,580,739
> Brazil - 207,353,391
> Pakistan - 204,924,861
> Nigeria - 190,632,26
> Bangladesh - 157,826,578
>
Is it necessary to solve problems for the entire world in order
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:44:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> 1. How would you propose scrubbing "a few billion people" off the
> >> planet? Genocide? Forced birth control? Public information campaigns
> >> in China, India, etc?
> >
> >
> >We could start by replacing a tax policy that encourages having
> >more kids with one that does not. Same thing with the welfare
> >policy. The more kids you have, the more welfare you get. If you're
> >an illegal, you can't get welfare, but if you have 4 kids, they can.
> >
> >
>
> Your tax policy changes are USA centric, which is the third most
> populace nation on the planet with approximately 330 million people.
> How would you propose dealing with countries like:
>
> China - 1,379,302,771
> India - 1,281,935,911
> Indonesia - 260,580,739
> Brazil - 207,353,391
> Pakistan - 204,924,861
> Nigeria - 190,632,26
> Bangladesh - 157,826,578
>
for the US to make progress on it's own? Will the US be better
off with a population of 600 mil or with 350 mil? Will we have
more environmental problems, more crowding, more loss of open
space, with 600 mil or 350? Do we have to solve Pakistans's
problems to make any positive difference here?
> >>
> >> Even if the world population were only 2 billion people; fusion,
> >> solar, tidal, and wind energy are far superior technologies. It makes
> >> no sense to plan on burning and emitting, as the dominant source of
> >> societal energy, when science and technology is making such rapid
> >> advances in renewable energy. Poisoning the planet more slowly,
> >> because of a fictional smaller population, is still poisoning the
> >> planet.
> >
> >That makes no sense. What's fictional?
>
> A smaller world-wide human population is fictional, it has never been
> purposely accomplished and has certainly not happened at all in the
> past 1400 years or longer.
>
he meant that we could or should reduce the current world population,
but that we could and should take steps to slow the increase. That
would be a start, would it not?
> >If population growth was
> >slowed, or stopped, it would not be fictional, anymore than any
>
> Can you cite a single decade, in the past 1400 years where the overall
> human population of the planet declined?
>
> >other possible way of reducing pollution. And saying we're still
> >poisoning the planet, you could say that about anything, like
> >reducing pollution from autos, they are still polluting, so why
> >bother?
> >
> >
> >
> >Additionally, the issue isn't just climate change, but
> >> environmental damage as well.
> >>
> >> Lockheed Martin's, Advanced Development Programs (a.k.a. The
> >> Skunkworks), is feverishly developing a compact fusion reactor. See:
> >>
> >> http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
> >
> >
> >Good grief, we have been trying for 40+ years to develop *any*
> >kind of fusion reactor, never mind a compact one.
> >
>
> A whole 40 years? I had no idea it had been that long. Then, by all
> means, fusion power is an impossibility........ ;-)
on fraud. They are suggesting that the solution to fusion is to
just make it smaller, when the real problem is no one has come
anywhere near to creating any usable power from it period. Their
bizarre reasoning is that if it's small things we make, we can make
them and try them faster. The problems are not size, they are how
to create the enormous temperatures and pressures required for fusion
to occur, how to contain that and maintain it, so that power can
be extracted.
There is also cold fusion which is still kicking around out there,
IDK what to make of that. It looks like a lot of scientists have
been able to repeat the Pons/Fleishman experiments and observe
excess energy. But it's not consistent, no one knows what's going
on and whatever it is, there are not the expected byproducts if
it was fusion. That area has it's fraudsters, eg that Rossi nut
in Italy that claims he has a commercial reactor.
> >
> >Oh please, stop the drama. Gfre made a very reasonable comment and
> >you turn it into genocide?
>
> Do you pay any attention to the way in which you phrase your comments?
Stormin' Norman
Sep 19, 2017, 3:46:55 PM9/19/17
to
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:41:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
You could have simply said that you have no idea how to implement
worldwide population control in an attempt to dramatically reduce the
levels of CO2 emissions. There is no need to evade a question by
posing a different question.
>
>I think you're taking what Gfre posted too literally. I don't think
>he meant that we could or should reduce the current world population,
>but that we could and should take steps to slow the increase. That
>would be a start, would it not?
>
Gfre, in my experience, does not communicate using allegories or
satire. It was specifically suggested the CO2 problem could be
addressed by scrubbing a few billion people off the planet. I give
him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was suggesting doing this
through generational attrition, however, my question still stands, how
is this accomplished in all of the heavily populated nations of the
world?
>> Do you pay any attention to the way in which you phrase your comments?
>
>Yes, you started dragging genocide into it. What's next, NAzis?
It is perfectly valid to ask if genocide would be used to accomplish
Gfre's proposition of scrubbing a few billion people off of the
planet. Just as it is perfectly valid to ask the entire group how
they would effect population control and or reduction across the
entire planet. I certainly do not know how to do it and obviously,
neither do you.
Faced with the practical inability to control the world population, we
are faced with the task of finding technological, political and
economic ways to address CO2 emissions / pollution, food, housing,
medicine, education and ecological conservation.
worldwide population control in an attempt to dramatically reduce the
levels of CO2 emissions. There is no need to evade a question by
posing a different question.
>
>I think you're taking what Gfre posted too literally. I don't think
>he meant that we could or should reduce the current world population,
>but that we could and should take steps to slow the increase. That
>would be a start, would it not?
>
satire. It was specifically suggested the CO2 problem could be
addressed by scrubbing a few billion people off the planet. I give
him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was suggesting doing this
through generational attrition, however, my question still stands, how
is this accomplished in all of the heavily populated nations of the
world?
>> Do you pay any attention to the way in which you phrase your comments?
>
>Yes, you started dragging genocide into it. What's next, NAzis?
Gfre's proposition of scrubbing a few billion people off of the
planet. Just as it is perfectly valid to ask the entire group how
they would effect population control and or reduction across the
entire planet. I certainly do not know how to do it and obviously,
neither do you.
Faced with the practical inability to control the world population, we
are faced with the task of finding technological, political and
economic ways to address CO2 emissions / pollution, food, housing,
medicine, education and ecological conservation.
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 19, 2017, 4:01:01 PM9/19/17
to
On 9/19/17 2:17 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:44:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:44:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
>
>
> A smaller world-wide human population is fictional, it has never been
> purposely accomplished and has certainly not happened at all in the
> past 1400 years or longer.
It is actually happening already. The World Bank stats note that the
> purposely accomplished and has certainly not happened at all in the
> past 1400 years or longer.
fertility rate of the world has been cut in half since 1960 and
currently sits at 2.5. This is how many kids per woman. 2.0 is usually
considered replacement (1 kid for the woman and 1 kid for the man to put
it rather grossly). Most of your list is at or near replacement
fertility rates with exception of Afghan and Nigeria and both of these
are at least 1/3 of what they were in 1960.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/
So. population growth related to birthin' babies has slowed and is
nearly at replacement world wide.
The reason for growth in the population numbers is largely on life
expectancy at birth. World wide life expectancy at birth has increased
between 60 and 2015 by 20 years. So it isn't that lots of people are
being born, it is just that lots of people are hanging on longer.
I don't have an exact time, but probably within the next 50 years
or so, if fertility rates stay the same and life expectancy stabilizes
you will begin to see a drop in population, on purpose.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN
>
>
> My question as to how anyone proposes to reduce the human population
> of the planet, which is something that has never been purposely
> accomplished by society, is a reasonable one. Just as the possible
> options I listed are not outside the experience of human history.
changes for the "worse" in fertility rates and life expectancy.)
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 19, 2017, 5:19:04 PM9/19/17
to
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:38:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 01:49:58 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>I have no problem with science or religion but I do not want either
>>one to be political footballs and they both are.
>>Unpopular science does not get funded and unreligious candidates do
>>not get elected.
>>As far as global warming goes, no politically aware scientist will
>>admit the problem is not the fuel we use, it is the number of people
>>on the planet. The CO2 hockey stick looks exactly like the population
>>hockey stick and that is undeniable. Just look. You just do not hear
>>anyone say it. If you want to cut CO2 levels, scrub a few billion off
>>the population and reforest/turf the land we have cleared to feed
>>them.
>>Making us all live like the 3d world will not help.
>
>1. How would you propose scrubbing "a few billion people" off the
>planet? Genocide? Forced birth control? Public information campaigns
>in China, India, etc?
>
I didn't say I had a socially acceptable answer and neither does
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 01:49:58 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>I have no problem with science or religion but I do not want either
>>one to be political footballs and they both are.
>>Unpopular science does not get funded and unreligious candidates do
>>not get elected.
>>As far as global warming goes, no politically aware scientist will
>>admit the problem is not the fuel we use, it is the number of people
>>on the planet. The CO2 hockey stick looks exactly like the population
>>hockey stick and that is undeniable. Just look. You just do not hear
>>anyone say it. If you want to cut CO2 levels, scrub a few billion off
>>the population and reforest/turf the land we have cleared to feed
>>them.
>>Making us all live like the 3d world will not help.
>
>1. How would you propose scrubbing "a few billion people" off the
>planet? Genocide? Forced birth control? Public information campaigns
>in China, India, etc?
>
"science", The religious and the athirst progressives both think every
life is sacred and they make unnatural efforts to save every sick
person. Then they wonder why the population blossoms. The fact is
still there that CO2 tracks population as closely as any other metric.
It started with the rise in agriculture 8000 years ago. It is simply
because crops are no match to natural ecosystems when it comes to
sinking CO2. Just about the time they get going good, we cut them
down, plow under the part we don't eat and look at largely barren soil
for months. That is more of a problem in the tropical 3d world than it
is in the temperate zones where the ground is covered with snow.
Brazil draining the wet lands and burning the rain forest to use
"renewable" ethanol is worse than if they just burned oil.
I suppose the thing that will scrub off those billions will be
thermonuclear war.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 19, 2017, 5:33:59 PM9/19/17
to
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:18:50 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>I suppose the thing that will scrub off those billions will be
>thermonuclear war.
Call me silly, but I prefer the less apocalyptic approach to
>I suppose the thing that will scrub off those billions will be
>thermonuclear war.
protecting our planet.
Further development of clean energy sources is preferable to complete
and utter contamination and destruction of the Earth by your
thermonuclear war.
Yes, that does sound silly..... ;-)
Stormin' Norman
Sep 20, 2017, 9:01:47 AM9/20/17
to
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:00:52 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is actually happening already. The World Bank stats note that the
>fertility rate of the world has been cut in half since 1960 and
>currently sits at 2.5. This is how many kids per woman. 2.0 is usually
>considered replacement (1 kid for the woman and 1 kid for the man to put
>it rather grossly). Most of your list is at or near replacement
>fertility rates with exception of Afghan and Nigeria and both of these
>are at least 1/3 of what they were in 1960.
>https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/
> So. population growth related to birthin' babies has slowed and is
>nearly at replacement world wide.
> The reason for growth in the population numbers is largely on life
>expectancy at birth. World wide life expectancy at birth has increased
>between 60 and 2015 by 20 years. So it isn't that lots of people are
>being born, it is just that lots of people are hanging on longer.
> I don't have an exact time, but probably within the next 50 years
>or so, if fertility rates stay the same and life expectancy stabilizes
>you will begin to see a drop in population, on purpose.
>https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN
>
Kurt, I appreciate your presentation of the statistics above.
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is actually happening already. The World Bank stats note that the
>fertility rate of the world has been cut in half since 1960 and
>currently sits at 2.5. This is how many kids per woman. 2.0 is usually
>considered replacement (1 kid for the woman and 1 kid for the man to put
>it rather grossly). Most of your list is at or near replacement
>fertility rates with exception of Afghan and Nigeria and both of these
>are at least 1/3 of what they were in 1960.
>https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/
> So. population growth related to birthin' babies has slowed and is
>nearly at replacement world wide.
> The reason for growth in the population numbers is largely on life
>expectancy at birth. World wide life expectancy at birth has increased
>between 60 and 2015 by 20 years. So it isn't that lots of people are
>being born, it is just that lots of people are hanging on longer.
> I don't have an exact time, but probably within the next 50 years
>or so, if fertility rates stay the same and life expectancy stabilizes
>you will begin to see a drop in population, on purpose.
>https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN
>
Mark Twain, my favorite satirist, once said: "There are three kinds of
lies; lies, damned lies and statistics." Taking that into
consideration, I present the following:
From the United Nations Department of economic and social affairs
21 June 2017
"The current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach 8.6
billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100,
according to a new United Nations report being launched today. With
roughly 83 million people being added to the world's population every
year, the upward trend in population size is expected to continue,
even assuming that fertility levels will continue to decline....."
The report continues here:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html
My take away from the report is; at least through 2100, the overall
world human population will continue to increase. In fact, if one
believes the projections, the planet will have to accommodate an
additional 3.2 billion human beings by the beginning of the next
century. That is roughly 82 years, or the span of a single human
lifetime.
Bringing the conversation back on track, at what point, exactly, do
you foresee the actual population of the world beginning to decrease,
not just a reduction the rate of growth? Keeping in mind that trends
of the past several decades cannot reasonably be expected to represent
trends over the next couple of centuries.
In the meantime, it would appear that without alternative energy
sources, human beings will continue to dump massive amounts of CO2
into the environment, increasing the temperature of the oceans, which
in turn will result in a cascade of changes to the global climate.
My original question still stands, with the human population
continuing to expand, how do we accommodate everyone without
drastically and negatively changing our planet? From my perspective,
it would seem that eliminating the burning of organic fuels and
replacing them as a source of energy with technological sources, would
go a very long way to accommodate our population growth, at least with
regard to stabilizing the climate, food production and water
treatment.
Or, we could use Gfe's approach and scrub a few billion people off the
planet with thermonuclear weapons......
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 20, 2017, 9:18:36 AM9/20/17
to
On 9/20/17 9:01 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:00:52 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It is actually happening already. The World Bank stats note that the
>> fertility rate of the world has been cut in half since 1960 and
>> currently sits at 2.5. This is how many kids per woman. 2.0 is usually
>> considered replacement (1 kid for the woman and 1 kid for the man to put
>> it rather grossly). Most of your list is at or near replacement
>> fertility rates with exception of Afghan and Nigeria and both of these
>> are at least 1/3 of what they were in 1960.
>> https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/
>> So. population growth related to birthin' babies has slowed and is
>> nearly at replacement world wide.
>> The reason for growth in the population numbers is largely on life
>> expectancy at birth. World wide life expectancy at birth has increased
>> between 60 and 2015 by 20 years. So it isn't that lots of people are
>> being born, it is just that lots of people are hanging on longer.
>> I don't have an exact time, but probably within the next 50 years
>> or so, if fertility rates stay the same and life expectancy stabilizes
>> you will begin to see a drop in population, on purpose.
>> https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN
>>
>
> Kurt, I appreciate your presentation of the statistics above.
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:00:52 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It is actually happening already. The World Bank stats note that the
>> fertility rate of the world has been cut in half since 1960 and
>> currently sits at 2.5. This is how many kids per woman. 2.0 is usually
>> considered replacement (1 kid for the woman and 1 kid for the man to put
>> it rather grossly). Most of your list is at or near replacement
>> fertility rates with exception of Afghan and Nigeria and both of these
>> are at least 1/3 of what they were in 1960.
>> https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN/
>> So. population growth related to birthin' babies has slowed and is
>> nearly at replacement world wide.
>> The reason for growth in the population numbers is largely on life
>> expectancy at birth. World wide life expectancy at birth has increased
>> between 60 and 2015 by 20 years. So it isn't that lots of people are
>> being born, it is just that lots of people are hanging on longer.
>> I don't have an exact time, but probably within the next 50 years
>> or so, if fertility rates stay the same and life expectancy stabilizes
>> you will begin to see a drop in population, on purpose.
>> https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN
>>
>
> Kurt, I appreciate your presentation of the statistics above.
>
>
> Bringing the conversation back on track, at what point, exactly, do
> you foresee the actual population of the world beginning to decrease,
> not just a reduction the rate of growth? Keeping in mind that trends
> of the past several decades cannot reasonably be expected to represent
> trends over the next couple of centuries.
As I mentioned, I don't know, that wasn't the question I was
> you foresee the actual population of the world beginning to decrease,
> not just a reduction the rate of growth? Keeping in mind that trends
> of the past several decades cannot reasonably be expected to represent
> trends over the next couple of centuries.
answering. The question was what do we need to do stop the growth in the
areas you discussed. Nothing, since it will take care of itself. First
of all why can't the trends be expected to represent what will happen or
at least why do they need to reverse. If the trends bottom (or top out
in the case of the life expectancy), then time will mean that population
growth will eventually stop. Has to.
The other part of that equation, that is even more important in
your part of the discussion, is the why both of these are occurring.
This seems to be that as the an area becomes more prosperous, they tend
to live longer and have fewer babies. But they also tend to consume more.
>
> In the meantime, it would appear that without alternative energy
> sources, human beings will continue to dump massive amounts of CO2
> into the environment, increasing the temperature of the oceans, which
> in turn will result in a cascade of changes to the global climate.
contribute in the way of nastiness in their own right? You have to mine
certain minerals to make the batteries, you have really nasty chemicals
used in the making of solar panels and batteries, etc. Most of the
discussion is that these things are all good with no talk about the
downsides that they may contribute.
>
> My original question still stands, with the human population
> continuing to expand, how do we accommodate everyone without
> drastically and negatively changing our planet? From my perspective,
> it would seem that eliminating the burning of organic fuels and
> replacing them as a source of energy with technological sources, would
> go a very long way to accommodate our population growth, at least with
> regard to stabilizing the climate, food production and water
> treatment.
environment to feed these people. House these people? It is simplistic
to suggest that carbon footprint is even the main concern.
>
> Or, we could use Gfe's approach and scrub a few billion people off the
> planet with thermonuclear weapons......
>
>
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 20, 2017, 10:33:09 AM9/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:01:34 +0000, Stormin' Norman
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>My original question still stands, with the human population
>continuing to expand, how do we accommodate everyone without
>drastically and negatively changing our planet? From my perspective,
>it would seem that eliminating the burning of organic fuels and
>replacing them as a source of energy with technological sources, would
>go a very long way to accommodate our population growth, at least with
>regard to stabilizing the climate, food production and water
>treatment.
>
>Or, we could use Gfe's approach and scrub a few billion people off the
>planet with thermonuclear weapons......
>
>
The problem with the "replacement" argument is people don't die as
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>My original question still stands, with the human population
>continuing to expand, how do we accommodate everyone without
>drastically and negatively changing our planet? From my perspective,
>it would seem that eliminating the burning of organic fuels and
>replacing them as a source of energy with technological sources, would
>go a very long way to accommodate our population growth, at least with
>regard to stabilizing the climate, food production and water
>treatment.
>
>Or, we could use Gfe's approach and scrub a few billion people off the
>planet with thermonuclear weapons......
>
>
soon as the baby is born and as you pointed out life expectancy is
rising so it is not unusual to have 5 generations still around. That
life expectancy rise is sharpest in the 3d world where they are not
going to be using high tech energy sources but they all want 20th
century conveniences.
I saw an interesting factoid about Freon, particularly R12 (the worst
one). Years after the protocol to ban production in the developed
countries there was actually more being produced because places like
China were making a billion new refrigerators for their people.
Oh and the ozone hole still went away, pretty much on it's own.
--
>
>The problem is Donald Trump. The solution is impeachment or, the otherwise legal
>removal, from office, of the greatest threat to peace the world has ever known.
... but his WWIII might solve the CO2 problem ;-)
>
>The problem is Donald Trump. The solution is impeachment or, the otherwise legal
>removal, from office, of the greatest threat to peace the world has ever known.
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 20, 2017, 10:41:44 AM9/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:18:27 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bringing the conversation back on track, at what point, exactly, do
>> you foresee the actual population of the world beginning to decrease,
>> not just a reduction the rate of growth? Keeping in mind that trends
>> of the past several decades cannot reasonably be expected to represent
>> trends over the next couple of centuries.
>
> As I mentioned, I don't know, that wasn't the question I was
>answering. The question was what do we need to do stop the growth in the
>areas you discussed. Nothing, since it will take care of itself. First
>of all why can't the trends be expected to represent what will happen or
>at least why do they need to reverse. If the trends bottom (or top out
>in the case of the life expectancy), then time will mean that population
>growth will eventually stop. Has to.
>
> The other part of that equation, that is even more important in
>your part of the discussion, is the why both of these are occurring.
>This seems to be that as the an area becomes more prosperous, they tend
>to live longer and have fewer babies. But they also tend to consume more.
The flip side of the equation gets little press. When these people are
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bringing the conversation back on track, at what point, exactly, do
>> you foresee the actual population of the world beginning to decrease,
>> not just a reduction the rate of growth? Keeping in mind that trends
>> of the past several decades cannot reasonably be expected to represent
>> trends over the next couple of centuries.
>
> As I mentioned, I don't know, that wasn't the question I was
>answering. The question was what do we need to do stop the growth in the
>areas you discussed. Nothing, since it will take care of itself. First
>of all why can't the trends be expected to represent what will happen or
>at least why do they need to reverse. If the trends bottom (or top out
>in the case of the life expectancy), then time will mean that population
>growth will eventually stop. Has to.
>
> The other part of that equation, that is even more important in
>your part of the discussion, is the why both of these are occurring.
>This seems to be that as the an area becomes more prosperous, they tend
>to live longer and have fewer babies. But they also tend to consume more.
burning down forests and plowing under turf land to grow crops they
are removing the natural CO2 sinks. That may be the most insidious
effect of population growth particularly in the 3d world where farming
is far less efficient.
Al Gore's carbon credit idea sounds good on paper but when he buys a
tree from a 3d world dictator that may not trickle down to the peasant
who thinks he owns that tree and he will burn it for firewood as soon
as he needs it.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 20, 2017, 11:05:37 AM9/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:18:27 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As I mentioned, I don't know, that wasn't the question I was
>answering. The question was what do we need to do stop the growth in the
>areas you discussed. Nothing, since it will take care of itself. First
>of all why can't the trends be expected to represent what will happen or
>at least why do they need to reverse. If the trends bottom (or top out
>in the case of the life expectancy), then time will mean that population
>growth will eventually stop. Has to.
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As I mentioned, I don't know, that wasn't the question I was
>answering. The question was what do we need to do stop the growth in the
>areas you discussed. Nothing, since it will take care of itself. First
>of all why can't the trends be expected to represent what will happen or
>at least why do they need to reverse. If the trends bottom (or top out
>in the case of the life expectancy), then time will mean that population
>growth will eventually stop. Has to.
Actually, you said:
"probably within the next 50 years
or so, if fertility rates stay the same and life expectancy stabilizes
you will begin to see a drop in population,"
Your interpretation of the statistics stands in stark contrast with
"probably within the next 50 years
or so, if fertility rates stay the same and life expectancy stabilizes
you will begin to see a drop in population,"
those of the United Nations, who projects the world population will
continue to increase. And, if you have been following the thread, the
overriding question was, just how do we reduce the world population or
"scrub a few billion people off the planet".
>
> The other part is that what will these alternative sources
>contribute in the way of nastiness in their own right? You have to mine
>certain minerals to make the batteries, you have really nasty chemicals
>used in the making of solar panels and batteries, etc. Most of the
>discussion is that these things are all good with no talk about the
>downsides that they may contribute.
We have copious data on the environmental impact associated with the
> The other part is that what will these alternative sources
>contribute in the way of nastiness in their own right? You have to mine
>certain minerals to make the batteries, you have really nasty chemicals
>used in the making of solar panels and batteries, etc. Most of the
>discussion is that these things are all good with no talk about the
>downsides that they may contribute.
production and burning of organic fuels, oil, coal, methane, wood,
etc.
Do you have actual data or are you speculating about the environmental
impact associated with the production of alternative energy
technology? If you have data, do you have any comparative analysis of
the impact of the two categories, organic v. alternative?
Without empirical supporting data and analysis, it would seem rather
careless to suggest or even, coyly imply that alternative energy
production could remotely approach the level of environmental impact
of organic fuels.
>Fuels are but a small part of the equation though. What do you do to the
>environment to feed these people. House these people? It is simplistic
>to suggest that carbon footprint is even the main concern.
>
billion people that will be present by 2100.
Energy is key to the production and delivery of clean water, food,
shelter and waste conversion.
"Clean" energy is the key to minimizing the impact human beings
inflict upon the climate of the planet.
Clean "renewable" energy sources are a key societal stabilizing
factor. With ever more people competing for ever more scarce organic
fuels, human beings will do what is in our nature and we will engage
in more and more conflicts to ensure that, as individuals, we each
"get our own" with little regard for the needs of others.
When energy production and distribution becomes clean, renewable,
sustainable, plentiful and efficient, the quality of life will likely
improve for the collective human population. This certainly cannot
and will not happen if we remain dependent upon organic fuels.
>>
>> Or, we could use Gfe's approach and scrub a few billion people off the
>> planet with thermonuclear weapons......
>>
>>
>Prefer conventional. Less damage to the environment.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 20, 2017, 11:22:16 AM9/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:32:51 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>The problem with the "replacement" argument is people don't die as
>soon as the baby is born and as you pointed out life expectancy is
>rising so it is not unusual to have 5 generations still around. That
>life expectancy rise is sharpest in the 3d world where they are not
>going to be using high tech energy sources but they all want 20th
>century conveniences.
Not sure what "the problem" is. As technological energy sources
>The problem with the "replacement" argument is people don't die as
>soon as the baby is born and as you pointed out life expectancy is
>rising so it is not unusual to have 5 generations still around. That
>life expectancy rise is sharpest in the 3d world where they are not
>going to be using high tech energy sources but they all want 20th
>century conveniences.
become more affordable and produce ever greater ROI, the rate of
adoption amongst the less affluent countries will increase.
Additionally, as this is an issue of global impact, it benefits
wealthier countries to assist poorer countries increase the rate of
alternative energy production.
A side benefit that should please the xenophobes among us is, more
plentiful energy production in poorer nations will serve to stem the
migration of populations. Energy impacts virtually all aspects of
human existence.
>I saw an interesting factoid about Freon, particularly R12 (the worst
>one). Years after the protocol to ban production in the developed
>countries there was actually more being produced because places like
>China were making a billion new refrigerators for their people.
>
>Oh and the ozone hole still went away, pretty much on it's own.
but, the ozone depletion issue has NOT gone away. It is simply
getting less coverage in the media. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
Uncle Monster
Sep 20, 2017, 11:31:52 AM9/20/17
to
[8~{} Uncle Fatalistic Monster
trader_4
Sep 20, 2017, 11:49:25 AM9/20/17
to
arrays are produced in China, have you not seen pictures of what
goes on over there? The polluted rivers? The cloud constantly
over Bejing where you can't see? They don't care much about the
environment. How do you think they manage to produce all kinds
of stuff and sell it for $1 on Ebay? The hippies buy solar arrays
from China, built with the fuel from coal, the wastes from all
the manufacturing streams poured anywhere, and then they say they
are saving the planet and the poor schmuck using nat gas is killing
us all.
In fact, it's almost certain that the Chinese interest in
climate accords is because they know it will screw the competition,
while the effects on China will be minimal. Obama bragged about
the last great agreement reached with China. It was kind of like
the deal the GOP winds up with when dealing with Democrats. It
was the US has hard limits and reductions now, China doesn't have
any for fifteen years.
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 20, 2017, 11:49:29 AM9/20/17
to
On 9/20/17 11:05 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:18:27 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> As I mentioned, I don't know, that wasn't the question I was
>> answering. The question was what do we need to do stop the growth in the
>> areas you discussed. Nothing, since it will take care of itself. First
>> of all why can't the trends be expected to represent what will happen or
>> at least why do they need to reverse. If the trends bottom (or top out
>> in the case of the life expectancy), then time will mean that population
>> growth will eventually stop. Has to.
>
> Actually, you said:
>
> "probably within the next 50 years
> or so, if fertility rates stay the same and life expectancy stabilizes
> you will begin to see a drop in population,"
>
The part above, I also mentioned that I wasn't a demographer and
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:18:27 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> As I mentioned, I don't know, that wasn't the question I was
>> answering. The question was what do we need to do stop the growth in the
>> areas you discussed. Nothing, since it will take care of itself. First
>> of all why can't the trends be expected to represent what will happen or
>> at least why do they need to reverse. If the trends bottom (or top out
>> in the case of the life expectancy), then time will mean that population
>> growth will eventually stop. Has to.
>
> Actually, you said:
>
> "probably within the next 50 years
> or so, if fertility rates stay the same and life expectancy stabilizes
> you will begin to see a drop in population,"
>
that was a guess. Never said otherwise. You pointed out another more
rigorous suggestion.
> Your interpretation of the statistics stands in stark contrast with
> those of the United Nations, who projects the world population will
> continue to increase. And, if you have been following the thread, the
> overriding question was, just how do we reduce the world population or
> "scrub a few billion people off the planet".
supposed to stop growth in those countries. They are already near the
stop growth part. Growth is based on how many babies are being made.
Period. Those that already here continuing to live longer than they used
to is a different part of the puzzle.
> Do you have actual data or are you speculating about the environmental
> impact associated with the production of alternative energy
> technology? If you have data, do you have any comparative analysis of
> the impact of the two categories, organic v. alternative?
things that happen for these things. Lithium mines for instance. There
is a long and well established bias against the exact kind of
comparisons you are asking for. For example, they came up with tailpipe
admissions to pretend there are fewer enviormental impacts. This sorta
ignores the pollution needed to make the electricity.
>
> Without empirical supporting data and analysis, it would seem rather
> careless to suggest or even, coyly imply that alternative energy
> production could remotely approach the level of environmental impact
> of organic fuels.
things like tailpipe emissions which is pretty much irrelevant for
electric cars. It is at least as careless to suggest that they are
environmentally friendly for the same reason.
>
> When energy production and distribution becomes clean, renewable,
> sustainable, plentiful and efficient, the quality of life will likely
> improve for the collective human population. This certainly cannot
> and will not happen if we remain dependent upon organic fuels.
>
You know that how in any way that is reproducible when others look
> When energy production and distribution becomes clean, renewable,
> sustainable, plentiful and efficient, the quality of life will likely
> improve for the collective human population. This certainly cannot
> and will not happen if we remain dependent upon organic fuels.
>
at the information.
>>>
>>> Or, we could use Gfe's approach and scrub a few billion people off the
>>> planet with thermonuclear weapons......
>>>
>>>
>> Prefer conventional. Less damage to the environment.
>
> Tree-hugging snowflake....... ;-)
>
>
Stormin' Norman
Sep 20, 2017, 12:16:25 PM9/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:49:20 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Your interpretation of the statistics stands in stark contrast with
>> those of the United Nations, who projects the world population will
>> continue to increase. And, if you have been following the thread, the
>> overriding question was, just how do we reduce the world population or
>> "scrub a few billion people off the planet".
> If you had been following the thread, you were wondering how were
>supposed to stop growth in those countries. They are already near the
>stop growth part. Growth is based on how many babies are being made.
>Period. Those that already here continuing to live longer than they used
>to is a different part of the puzzle.
>
Not being one to parse words, I must disagree. If you re-read my
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Your interpretation of the statistics stands in stark contrast with
>> those of the United Nations, who projects the world population will
>> continue to increase. And, if you have been following the thread, the
>> overriding question was, just how do we reduce the world population or
>> "scrub a few billion people off the planet".
> If you had been following the thread, you were wondering how were
>supposed to stop growth in those countries. They are already near the
>stop growth part. Growth is based on how many babies are being made.
>Period. Those that already here continuing to live longer than they used
>to is a different part of the puzzle.
>
posts, you will see I asked how anyone proposed to "scrub a few
billion people off the planet", I also asked how trader proposed to
deal with several nations when it came to scrubbing people from the
planet.
>
>
>> Do you have actual data or are you speculating about the environmental
>> impact associated with the production of alternative energy
>> technology? If you have data, do you have any comparative analysis of
>> the impact of the two categories, organic v. alternative?
> There are numerous places where you can see the types of nasty
>things that happen for these things. Lithium mines for instance. There
>is a long and well established bias against the exact kind of
>comparisons you are asking for. For example, they came up with tailpipe
>admissions to pretend there are fewer enviormental impacts. This sorta
>ignores the pollution needed to make the electricity.
>
>>
>> Without empirical supporting data and analysis, it would seem rather
>> careless to suggest or even, coyly imply that alternative energy
>> production could remotely approach the level of environmental impact
>> of organic fuels.
>
> But the data isn't available because people aren't looking at using
>things like tailpipe emissions which is pretty much irrelevant for
>electric cars. It is at least as careless to suggest that they are
>environmentally friendly for the same reason.
Such behavior is the purview of religions.
>>
>
>> When energy production and distribution becomes clean, renewable,
>> sustainable, plentiful and efficient, the quality of life will likely
>> improve for the collective human population. This certainly cannot
>> and will not happen if we remain dependent upon organic fuels.
>>
>
> You know that how in any way that is reproducible when others look
>at the information.
it with statistics of citations. Would you like to discuss and refute
the obvious logic that went into formulating the opinion?
It appeared you were fine with introducing opinions based upon your
assertion about the inevitable reduction in world population.
>
>>>>
>>>> Or, we could use Gfe's approach and scrub a few billion people off the
>>>> planet with thermonuclear weapons......
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Prefer conventional. Less damage to the environment.
>>
>> Tree-hugging snowflake....... ;-)
>
>Nah. I just am a fan of Albert Nobel. :)
memories.......
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 20, 2017, 12:30:44 PM9/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:22:08 +0000, Stormin' Norman
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:32:51 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>The problem with the "replacement" argument is people don't die as
>>soon as the baby is born and as you pointed out life expectancy is
>>rising so it is not unusual to have 5 generations still around. That
>>life expectancy rise is sharpest in the 3d world where they are not
>>going to be using high tech energy sources but they all want 20th
>>century conveniences.
>
>Not sure what "the problem" is. As technological energy sources
>become more affordable and produce ever greater ROI, the rate of
>adoption amongst the less affluent countries will increase.
>
>Additionally, as this is an issue of global impact, it benefits
>wealthier countries to assist poorer countries increase the rate of
>alternative energy production.
>
>A side benefit that should please the xenophobes among us is, more
>plentiful energy production in poorer nations will serve to stem the
>migration of populations. Energy impacts virtually all aspects of
>human existence.
>
The problem is we are still not addressing the other side of the
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:32:51 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>The problem with the "replacement" argument is people don't die as
>>soon as the baby is born and as you pointed out life expectancy is
>>rising so it is not unusual to have 5 generations still around. That
>>life expectancy rise is sharpest in the 3d world where they are not
>>going to be using high tech energy sources but they all want 20th
>>century conveniences.
>
>Not sure what "the problem" is. As technological energy sources
>become more affordable and produce ever greater ROI, the rate of
>adoption amongst the less affluent countries will increase.
>
>Additionally, as this is an issue of global impact, it benefits
>wealthier countries to assist poorer countries increase the rate of
>alternative energy production.
>
>A side benefit that should please the xenophobes among us is, more
>plentiful energy production in poorer nations will serve to stem the
>migration of populations. Energy impacts virtually all aspects of
>human existence.
>
equation, the loss of the ecosystems that absorb CO2, mostly due to
the agriculture necessary to feed the population and the homes they
live in.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 20, 2017, 12:43:29 PM9/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:30:26 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>The problem is we are still not addressing the other side of the
>equation, the loss of the ecosystems that absorb CO2, mostly due to
>the agriculture necessary to feed the population and the homes they
>live in.
That problem will be diminished by reducing the amount of CO2 put into
>The problem is we are still not addressing the other side of the
>equation, the loss of the ecosystems that absorb CO2, mostly due to
>the agriculture necessary to feed the population and the homes they
>live in.
the environment.
Are you suggesting much poorer nations should refrain from developing
their territories and feeding their populations so that wealthier
nations can continue dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the
environment? What is your solution for the issue you raised?
Lastly, according to the following paper in the journal Nature, the
oceans are the largest sink for anthropogenic carbon dioxide,
absorbing 40% of the CO2.
See:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7640/full/nature21068.html
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 20, 2017, 12:46:17 PM9/20/17
to
On 9/20/17 12:16 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:49:20 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Not being one to parse words, I must disagree. If you re-read my
> posts, you will see I asked how anyone proposed to "scrub a few
> billion people off the planet", I also asked how trader proposed to
> deal with several nations when it came to scrubbing people from the
> planet.
>
Why pick those then? The Western Countries are the biggest. With
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:49:20 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Not being one to parse words, I must disagree. If you re-read my
> posts, you will see I asked how anyone proposed to "scrub a few
> billion people off the planet", I also asked how trader proposed to
> deal with several nations when it came to scrubbing people from the
> planet.
>
the exception of China and Brazil, all of those together have
populations that are but small parts of the problem.
>
>>
>>
>>> Do you have actual data or are you speculating about the environmental
>>> impact associated with the production of alternative energy
>>> technology? If you have data, do you have any comparative analysis of
>>> the impact of the two categories, organic v. alternative?
>> There are numerous places where you can see the types of nasty
>> things that happen for these things. Lithium mines for instance. There
>> is a long and well established bias against the exact kind of
>> comparisons you are asking for. For example, they came up with tailpipe
>> admissions to pretend there are fewer enviormental impacts. This sorta
>> ignores the pollution needed to make the electricity.
>>
>
>
> So, speculation, thanks, that is all you needed to say.
You get upset about ME parsing words?
>
>
>>>
>>> Without empirical supporting data and analysis, it would seem rather
>>> careless to suggest or even, coyly imply that alternative energy
>>> production could remotely approach the level of environmental impact
>>> of organic fuels.
>>
>> But the data isn't available because people aren't looking at using
>> things like tailpipe emissions which is pretty much irrelevant for
>> electric cars. It is at least as careless to suggest that they are
>> environmentally friendly for the same reason.
>
> Just because data isn't available, that is not license to speculate.
> Such behavior is the purview of religions.
speculation?
>
>>>
>>
>>> When energy production and distribution becomes clean, renewable,
>>> sustainable, plentiful and efficient, the quality of life will likely
>>> improve for the collective human population. This certainly cannot
>>> and will not happen if we remain dependent upon organic fuels.
>>>
>>
>> You know that how in any way that is reproducible when others look
>> at the information.
>
> My statement above was clearly opinion as I did not attempt to support
> it with statistics of citations. Would you like to discuss and refute
> the obvious logic that went into formulating the opinion?
>
> It appeared you were fine with introducing opinions based upon your
> assertion about the inevitable reduction in world population.
expectancy stabilizes, world population has to reduce. If you have fewer
births, eventually you have to start downward. Heck we are seeing this
in the US. For years the largest percentage of the net growth has been
in immigrants. The "local" population has been shrinking in growth since
the end of the Boomers, with a little bump as the Boomers hit child
bearing age. Even with Immigration, our growth rate has declined.
Japan, which has less immigration, had has negative growth over the
last couple of decades. Europe may well soon.
So, there is ample evidence that there is an inevitable reduction.
The question is how soon. And for that I was rather ill advised to make
such a quick judgement.
>
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, we could use Gfe's approach and scrub a few billion people off the
>>>>> planet with thermonuclear weapons......
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Prefer conventional. Less damage to the environment.
>>>
>>> Tree-hugging snowflake....... ;-)
>>
>> Nah. I just am a fan of Albert Nobel. :)
>
> Ahh, the smell of dynamite, C-4 and RDX in the morning. Brings back
> memories.......
>
>
Stormin' Norman
Sep 20, 2017, 12:52:22 PM9/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:46:07 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And for that I was rather ill advised to make
>such a quick judgement.
At least we can agree on one point......... ;-)
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And for that I was rather ill advised to make
>such a quick judgement.
Good discussion.
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 20, 2017, 1:07:27 PM9/20/17
to
On 9/20/17 12:52 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:46:07 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> And for that I was rather ill advised to make
>> such a quick judgement.
>
> At least we can agree on one point......... ;-)
>
> Good discussion.
>
>
Yeah. Let's quit while we are ahead. :)
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:46:07 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> And for that I was rather ill advised to make
>> such a quick judgement.
>
> At least we can agree on one point......... ;-)
>
> Good discussion.
>
>
Stormin' Norman
Sep 20, 2017, 1:34:17 PM9/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:07:18 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
stale, might have been my imagination.
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 9/20/17 12:52 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:46:07 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
>> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And for that I was rather ill advised to make
>>> such a quick judgement.
>>
>> At least we can agree on one point......... ;-)
>>
>> Good discussion.
>>
>>
>Yeah. Let's quit while we are ahead. :)
We can keep going if you prefer, it seemed to be getting a little
>On 9/20/17 12:52 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:46:07 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
>> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And for that I was rather ill advised to make
>>> such a quick judgement.
>>
>> At least we can agree on one point......... ;-)
>>
>> Good discussion.
>>
>>
>Yeah. Let's quit while we are ahead. :)
stale, might have been my imagination.
trader_4
Sep 20, 2017, 1:41:08 PM9/20/17
to
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
> On 9/20/17 12:16 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:49:20 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> > <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Not being one to parse words, I must disagree. If you re-read my
> > posts, you will see I asked how anyone proposed to "scrub a few
> > billion people off the planet", I also asked how trader proposed to
> > deal with several nations when it came to scrubbing people from the
> > planet.
> >
> Why pick those then? The Western Countries are the biggest. With
> the exception of China and Brazil, all of those together have
> populations that are but small parts of the problem.
>
And as pointed out, why must I explain how to deal with every
> On 9/20/17 12:16 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:49:20 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> > <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Not being one to parse words, I must disagree. If you re-read my
> > posts, you will see I asked how anyone proposed to "scrub a few
> > billion people off the planet", I also asked how trader proposed to
> > deal with several nations when it came to scrubbing people from the
> > planet.
> >
> Why pick those then? The Western Countries are the biggest. With
> the exception of China and Brazil, all of those together have
> populations that are but small parts of the problem.
>
country? Even if the US reduced it's population growth rate
there would be benefit. It's like saying we shouldn't do
anything about any problem unless we can get every country
to also do it. And it will have a direct, significant impact
on environmental problems here. Less population, less
garbage to dispose, less roads to build, less covering of
the urban landscape with pavement, less power lines to build,
etc.
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 20, 2017, 1:41:11 PM9/20/17
to
On 9/20/17 1:34 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:07:18 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/20/17 12:52 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:46:07 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
>>> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And for that I was rather ill advised to make
>>>> such a quick judgement.
>>>
>>> At least we can agree on one point......... ;-)
>>>
>>> Good discussion.
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah. Let's quit while we are ahead. :)
>
> We can keep going if you prefer, it seemed to be getting a little
> stale, might have been my imagination.
>
>
No, I'm done/ We were about to the point where we likely to start
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:07:18 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/20/17 12:52 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:46:07 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
>>> <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And for that I was rather ill advised to make
>>>> such a quick judgement.
>>>
>>> At least we can agree on one point......... ;-)
>>>
>>> Good discussion.
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah. Let's quit while we are ahead. :)
>
> We can keep going if you prefer, it seemed to be getting a little
> stale, might have been my imagination.
>
>
repeating ourselves, and that is always a good place to stop. Then we
don't run the risk of talking AT each other and not TO each other.
trader_4
Sep 20, 2017, 1:44:21 PM9/20/17
to
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 12:43:29 PM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:30:26 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >The problem is we are still not addressing the other side of the
> >equation, the loss of the ecosystems that absorb CO2, mostly due to
> >the agriculture necessary to feed the population and the homes they
> >live in.
>
> That problem will be diminished by reducing the amount of CO2 put into
> the environment.
Good grief. All Gfre is saying is that there are TWO sides to the
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:30:26 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >The problem is we are still not addressing the other side of the
> >equation, the loss of the ecosystems that absorb CO2, mostly due to
> >the agriculture necessary to feed the population and the homes they
> >live in.
>
> That problem will be diminished by reducing the amount of CO2 put into
> the environment.
equation. If you have less people, you will have less pollution,
less competition for the earth's resources, less deforestation.
I can't believe you're still arguing against that, including with
images of genocide.
trader_4
Sep 20, 2017, 1:46:42 PM9/20/17
to
sure about that.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 20, 2017, 1:51:06 PM9/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:41:02 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
Agreed, that's two points. ;-)
Stormin' Norman
Sep 20, 2017, 2:14:38 PM9/20/17
to
the football. Muggles is holding t for you. ;-)
For the record, I am convinced human beings, as a whole, are currently
dumping far too much CO2 into the environment.
I am also convinced there is virtually no possibility of intentionally
and peacefully reducing the population of the planet, certainly not
within the next century and certainly not below our current levels. As
none of you have been able to provide any peaceful, sane methods for
reducing the overall global population, my perspective remains
unchanged.
Resultantly, with an ever increasing population (into the foreseeable
future, according to the UN), the only realistic approach to reducing
CO2, is to reduce the amount anthropogenic carbon dioxide being
dumped. The only way I know of doing that is to change how we produce
potential and kinetic energy.
If you actually know how to reduce the global population below today's
levels, or, if you know how to technically and economically absorb and
safely dispose of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, please, share those
solutions. The entire world would like to know.
I will say it again Trader, please elucidate, how do we reduce the
GLOBAL population? How do we reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide? Be
specific, please!
Vic Smith
Sep 20, 2017, 2:51:56 PM9/20/17
to
>I saw an interesting factoid about Freon, particularly R12 (the worst
>one). Years after the protocol to ban production in the developed
>countries there was actually more being produced because places like
>China were making a billion new refrigerators for their people.
>
>Oh and the ozone hole still went away, pretty much on it's own.
LOL. Per the 1987 Montreal Protocol, reduction in CFC production occurred worldwide.
>one). Years after the protocol to ban production in the developed
>countries there was actually more being produced because places like
>China were making a billion new refrigerators for their people.
>
>Oh and the ozone hole still went away, pretty much on it's own.
Undeveloped countries just had a different schedule.
AFAIK that's what reduced the size of the ozone hole. It wasn't magic.
Dean Hoffman
Sep 20, 2017, 4:29:42 PM9/20/17
to
On 9/18/17 1:55 PM, trader_4 wrote:
> Rush used to have some value, but he started to go down the tubes 15
> years ago. More full of himself, more bloviating without regard to
> facts, and now he's become a total Trumptard. There are real
> conservative issues at hand, including what Trump did with DACA, the
> debt ceiling, rumblings that he's backing away now on the wall and
> the Paris accords too, yet the big blowhard is talking about the
> Emmys? It's an obvious attempt to keep you trumpets mesmerized and
> distracted. Let's attack the media, Hillary, meterologists, instead
> of talking about the real issues of the day.
Rush was citing University of Alabama's Roy Spencer once upon a
time. Spencer and his colleague John Christy don't agree with the
global warming worriers.
Then there's this site: https://wattsupwiththat.com I don't know if
Rush ever
cited it. I got tired of the talk radio guys long ago.
> Rush used to have some value, but he started to go down the tubes 15
> years ago. More full of himself, more bloviating without regard to
> facts, and now he's become a total Trumptard. There are real
> conservative issues at hand, including what Trump did with DACA, the
> debt ceiling, rumblings that he's backing away now on the wall and
> the Paris accords too, yet the big blowhard is talking about the
> Emmys? It's an obvious attempt to keep you trumpets mesmerized and
> distracted. Let's attack the media, Hillary, meterologists, instead
> of talking about the real issues of the day.
Rush was citing University of Alabama's Roy Spencer once upon a
time. Spencer and his colleague John Christy don't agree with the
global warming worriers.
Then there's this site: https://wattsupwiththat.com I don't know if
Rush ever
cited it. I got tired of the talk radio guys long ago.
trader_4
Sep 20, 2017, 5:31:25 PM9/20/17
to
there will be less people in 25 years than there would be without.
Capiche? Do we now have to address every country's problems before
we can address our own? And I gave you some very simple steps,
starting with changing
the tax code so that it doesn't reward having more children.
Raising the tax on cigarettes has reduced their sales. Give
people a tax break if they only have one or two children,
let them pay an extra tax if they have more. Let parents
who have more than two children pay extra local property taxes
that fund the schools that are paying to educate those extra kids.
Change the welfare rules so that program doesn't encourage more
children. If you are going to be on welfare more than X months,
require sterilization, that would be an option. Public awareness
campaigns would play a role.
How hard was that? Of course the govt will never do it, because
they need endless rapid population growth to bail them out of all
their deficit spending and unfunded liabilities.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 20, 2017, 6:02:14 PM9/20/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 14:31:21 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Just to be clear, what I take away from your answer is that you have
absolutely no realistic or practical ideas of how to reduce the
population of the planet below today's level. And yes, as the problem
is global, those who wish to resolve the issue must address it as a
global issue.
This of course means that unless the world makes a serious effort to
convert to clean energy sources in an effort to reduce the levels of
anthropogenic carbon dioxide, human society will continue to dump just
as much, if not more CO2 into the environment.
As a result, damage to the ocean ecosystem will increase, ocean
temperatures will continue to increase, ice caps will continue to
dwindle, ocean levels will continue to rise, there will be an ever
increasing amount and severity of devastating storms, etc.
absolutely no realistic or practical ideas of how to reduce the
population of the planet below today's level. And yes, as the problem
is global, those who wish to resolve the issue must address it as a
global issue.
This of course means that unless the world makes a serious effort to
convert to clean energy sources in an effort to reduce the levels of
anthropogenic carbon dioxide, human society will continue to dump just
as much, if not more CO2 into the environment.
As a result, damage to the ocean ecosystem will increase, ocean
temperatures will continue to increase, ice caps will continue to
dwindle, ocean levels will continue to rise, there will be an ever
increasing amount and severity of devastating storms, etc.
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 21, 2017, 1:44:55 AM9/21/17
to
concentrations. That was my point. There are so many population
related causes for CO2 rise that simply throwing a sacrificial Hummer
into the volcano is not going to do anything significant. This trend
is 8000 years old and the population hockey stick looks just like the
CO2 hockey stick.
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 21, 2017, 1:53:45 AM9/21/17
to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>As a result, damage to the ocean ecosystem will increase, ocean
>temperatures will continue to increase, ice caps will continue to
>dwindle, ocean levels will continue to rise, there will be an ever
>increasing amount and severity of devastating storms, etc.
Maybe that is nature's way of reducing population. The other one is
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>As a result, damage to the ocean ecosystem will increase, ocean
>temperatures will continue to increase, ice caps will continue to
>dwindle, ocean levels will continue to rise, there will be an ever
>increasing amount and severity of devastating storms, etc.
disease but we are far too good at curing them.
It is like social security. We have a system financially based on a
life expectancy of 66-67 years and we increased that life expectancy
without changing the program.
The 3d world has a culture of having a dozen kids, assuming 10 of them
will die young and we are changing that life expectancy without
changing the culture.
They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
they see on that TV.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 21, 2017, 7:58:07 AM9/21/17
to
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:44:33 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>I think we better just learn to live in a world with higher CO2
>concentrations. That was my point. There are so many population
>related causes for CO2 rise that simply throwing a sacrificial Hummer
>into the volcano is not going to do anything significant. This trend
>is 8000 years old and the population hockey stick looks just like the
>CO2 hockey stick.
>
That is ok for people who don't have kids, grandchildren or great
>
>I think we better just learn to live in a world with higher CO2
>concentrations. That was my point. There are so many population
>related causes for CO2 rise that simply throwing a sacrificial Hummer
>into the volcano is not going to do anything significant. This trend
>is 8000 years old and the population hockey stick looks just like the
>CO2 hockey stick.
>
grandchildren and for people that don't care about leaving things in
better condition than they found them.
No, as a problem solver, I will continue to look for solutions and
endorse with my elected representatives, any realistic and practical
solutions put forth by anyone.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 21, 2017, 8:08:49 AM9/21/17
to
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:53:26 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>
>>As a result, damage to the ocean ecosystem will increase, ocean
>>temperatures will continue to increase, ice caps will continue to
>>dwindle, ocean levels will continue to rise, there will be an ever
>>increasing amount and severity of devastating storms, etc.
>
>Maybe that is nature's way of reducing population. The other one is
>disease but we are far too good at curing them.
OK..... to clarify, you believe "nature" is some kind of supernatural
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>
>>As a result, damage to the ocean ecosystem will increase, ocean
>>temperatures will continue to increase, ice caps will continue to
>>dwindle, ocean levels will continue to rise, there will be an ever
>>increasing amount and severity of devastating storms, etc.
>
>Maybe that is nature's way of reducing population. The other one is
>disease but we are far too good at curing them.
force?
>It is like social security. We have a system financially based on a
>life expectancy of 66-67 years and we increased that life expectancy
>without changing the program.
address the problem, not ignore it.
>The 3d world has a culture of having a dozen kids, assuming 10 of them
>will die young and we are changing that life expectancy without
>changing the culture.
>They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
>they see on that TV.
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 21, 2017, 8:56:42 AM9/21/17
to
On 9/21/17 1:53 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
> <nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
> It is like social security. We have a system financially based on a
> life expectancy of 66-67 years and we increased that life expectancy
> without changing the program.
Life expectancy has nothing to do with SS. What IS important is life
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
> <nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
> It is like social security. We have a system financially based on a
> life expectancy of 66-67 years and we increased that life expectancy
> without changing the program.
expectancy at 65 (you really don't care about the kid who croaks before
65 in this area). That has increased only a couple of years since the
40s and has been compensated for.
What is killing SS is that it has always been pay as you go with
current workers paying for the retirement of the previous generation.
Worked in the 60s when there were 5 workers for each retiree, not so
much in 2010s with 2.9 per. Much of this is baby boom followed by baby
bust.
The Republican
Sep 21, 2017, 10:41:18 AM9/21/17
to
On 9/21/2017 5:56 AM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
> What is killing SS is that it has always been pay as you go with
> current workers paying for the retirement of the previous generation.
> Worked in the 60s when there were 5 workers for each retiree, not so
> much in 2010s with 2.9 per. Much of this is baby boom followed by baby
> bust.
>
>
Don't forget all the mentally disabled democrats drawing "crazy" checks.
> What is killing SS is that it has always been pay as you go with
> current workers paying for the retirement of the previous generation.
> Worked in the 60s when there were 5 workers for each retiree, not so
> much in 2010s with 2.9 per. Much of this is baby boom followed by baby
> bust.
>
>
trader_4
Sep 21, 2017, 10:55:45 AM9/21/17
to
On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 8:56:42 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
> On 9/21/17 1:53 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
> > <nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > It is like social security. We have a system financially based on a
> > life expectancy of 66-67 years and we increased that life expectancy
> > without changing the program.
> Life expectancy has nothing to do with SS. What IS important is life
> expectancy at 65 (you really don't care about the kid who croaks before
> 65 in this area). That has increased only a couple of years since the
> 40s and has been compensated for.
Even if true that it's only increased a couple of years, it could
> On 9/21/17 1:53 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
> > <nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>
> > It is like social security. We have a system financially based on a
> > life expectancy of 66-67 years and we increased that life expectancy
> > without changing the program.
> Life expectancy has nothing to do with SS. What IS important is life
> expectancy at 65 (you really don't care about the kid who croaks before
> 65 in this area). That has increased only a couple of years since the
> 40s and has been compensated for.
still have a significant impact, depending on what the life
expectancy at 65 was, ie increasing 10 by 2.5 is would be a
25% increase. But it's worse than that. I don't have data
for the 40s, but in 1950 life expectancy at 65 was 13.9 years.
By 2010 it was 19.1 years. That's an increase of 5.2 years
or 37%. When you have to pay out 37% more money, it's very
significant.
And AFAIK, it's only been partially accounted for. Today people
born in the 50s will have to wait until 66 to get full benefits
instead of 65. So, it hasn't been compensated for by adjusting
age fully, that's for sure.
> What is killing SS is that it has always been pay as you go with
> current workers paying for the retirement of the previous generation.
> Worked in the 60s when there were 5 workers for each retiree, not so
> much in 2010s with 2.9 per. Much of this is baby boom followed by baby
> bust.
population increase slow down.
trader_4
Sep 21, 2017, 11:06:15 AM9/21/17
to
you're doing. I clearly stated many posts ago that I took Gfre's
comments to mean that decreasing the population could include
decreasing FUTURE population by limiting increases. You choose
to take away that means genocide. And again, I've made it very
clear that there are benefits other than CO2 that would help the
USA, eg less pollution of all kinds, less loss of free space,
less impact on all our natural resources. So, I reject your
insistence that I have to solve the problems in Pakistan too.
Whatever we do here would help with CO2 too. And the US is a role
model, if we do the right things, it encourages others. I gave
you some concrete examples, eg removing tax policy incentives
to have more children. But feel free to turn that into genocide.
This is another example of where you've just gone totally off
the rails.
> This of course means that unless the world makes a serious effort to
> convert to clean energy sources in an effort to reduce the levels of
> anthropogenic carbon dioxide, human society will continue to dump just
> as much, if not more CO2 into the environment.
under all current plans to limit CO2 *increases*. So, following
your logic, we should do nothing because we don't have a plan
to decrease it. What we are actually doing is exactly what is
proposed with limiting population growth, ie limiting future
*increases*. AGain, all I saw Gfre suggesting is that we look at
both sides of the equation. Population growth is a driving
factor of not only CO2 increase, but most of the world's pollution
and resource problems.
trader_4
Sep 21, 2017, 11:13:16 AM9/21/17
to
On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 7:58:07 AM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:44:33 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I think we better just learn to live in a world with higher CO2
> >concentrations. That was my point. There are so many population
> >related causes for CO2 rise that simply throwing a sacrificial Hummer
> >into the volcano is not going to do anything significant. This trend
> >is 8000 years old and the population hockey stick looks just like the
> >CO2 hockey stick.
> >
>
> That is ok for people who don't have kids, grandchildren or great
> grandchildren and for people that don't care about leaving things in
> better condition than they found them.
>
> No, as a problem solver, I will continue to look for solutions and
> endorse with my elected representatives, any realistic and practical
> solutions put forth by anyone.
>
>
Except of course limiting future population increases, which are
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:44:33 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I think we better just learn to live in a world with higher CO2
> >concentrations. That was my point. There are so many population
> >related causes for CO2 rise that simply throwing a sacrificial Hummer
> >into the volcano is not going to do anything significant. This trend
> >is 8000 years old and the population hockey stick looks just like the
> >CO2 hockey stick.
> >
>
> That is ok for people who don't have kids, grandchildren or great
> grandchildren and for people that don't care about leaving things in
> better condition than they found them.
>
> No, as a problem solver, I will continue to look for solutions and
> endorse with my elected representatives, any realistic and practical
> solutions put forth by anyone.
>
>
a driving factor in almost all the world's pollution and resource
problems. Did you insist that the US be able to fix the pollution
problems of Pakistan and India before you were in favor of reducing
pollution from our cars? Is the USA better off 50 years from now
with a population of 340 mil or 440 mil? I look around driving
here and see what was open space, trees, forests, farms, filled
with McMansions. I know, can't fix that without fixing Pakistan.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 21, 2017, 12:10:05 PM9/21/17
to
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 07:55:32 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Agree with that, which is why I said govt can't afford to see the
>population increase slow down.
I am surprised you didn't suggest killing off social security and
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Agree with that, which is why I said govt can't afford to see the
>population increase slow down.
Medicare as way to reduce the US population....... ;-)
Kurt V. Ullman
Sep 21, 2017, 12:18:48 PM9/21/17
to
On 9/21/17 10:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>
But it's worse than that. I don't have data
> for the 40s, but in 1950 life expectancy at 65 was 13.9 years.
> By 2010 it was 19.1 years. That's an increase of 5.2 years
> or 37%. When you have to pay out 37% more money, it's very
> significant.
>
> And AFAIK, it's only been partially accounted for. Today people
> born in the 50s will have to wait until 66 to get full benefits
> instead of 65. So, it hasn't been compensated for by adjusting
> age fully, that's for sure.
Depending on when in the 50s, can go to almost 67, around half is
>
But it's worse than that. I don't have data
> for the 40s, but in 1950 life expectancy at 65 was 13.9 years.
> By 2010 it was 19.1 years. That's an increase of 5.2 years
> or 37%. When you have to pay out 37% more money, it's very
> significant.
>
> And AFAIK, it's only been partially accounted for. Today people
> born in the 50s will have to wait until 66 to get full benefits
> instead of 65. So, it hasn't been compensated for by adjusting
> age fully, that's for sure.
compensated for. (5.2 years increase in LE and 2 additional years of wait. )
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 21, 2017, 2:51:31 PM9/21/17
to
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:08:44 +0000, Stormin' Norman
nature has a way of bringing it back into balance. The problem is
humans are too good at fighting back against nature.
>
>>It is like social security. We have a system financially based on a
>>life expectancy of 66-67 years and we increased that life expectancy
>>without changing the program.
>
>A human problem with human solutions, it just requires that humans
>address the problem, not ignore it.
Humans do not have a very good track record of fixing anything that
they screwed up.
>>They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
>>they see on that TV.
>
>The nerve!
That is the thinking that got is into the problem we have. Everyone
wants everything and nobody seems to have the power to stop them.
The big leveling force may be nukes because we can't seem to stop
people from getting them either.
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:53:26 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
>><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>As a result, damage to the ocean ecosystem will increase, ocean
>>>temperatures will continue to increase, ice caps will continue to
>>>dwindle, ocean levels will continue to rise, there will be an ever
>>>increasing amount and severity of devastating storms, etc.
>>
>>Maybe that is nature's way of reducing population. The other one is
>>disease but we are far too good at curing them.
>
>OK..... to clarify, you believe "nature" is some kind of supernatural
>force?
No nature is a leveling force. When a planet gets out of balance,
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 01:53:26 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
>><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>As a result, damage to the ocean ecosystem will increase, ocean
>>>temperatures will continue to increase, ice caps will continue to
>>>dwindle, ocean levels will continue to rise, there will be an ever
>>>increasing amount and severity of devastating storms, etc.
>>
>>Maybe that is nature's way of reducing population. The other one is
>>disease but we are far too good at curing them.
>
>OK..... to clarify, you believe "nature" is some kind of supernatural
>force?
nature has a way of bringing it back into balance. The problem is
humans are too good at fighting back against nature.
>
>>It is like social security. We have a system financially based on a
>>life expectancy of 66-67 years and we increased that life expectancy
>>without changing the program.
>
>A human problem with human solutions, it just requires that humans
>address the problem, not ignore it.
they screwed up.
>
>
>>The 3d world has a culture of having a dozen kids, assuming 10 of them
>>will die young and we are changing that life expectancy without
>>changing the culture.
>
>Would you post a link to the source of those statistics, please?
>
That is anthropology 101 look it up yourself.
>
>>The 3d world has a culture of having a dozen kids, assuming 10 of them
>>will die young and we are changing that life expectancy without
>>changing the culture.
>
>Would you post a link to the source of those statistics, please?
>
>>They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
>>they see on that TV.
>
>The nerve!
wants everything and nobody seems to have the power to stop them.
The big leveling force may be nukes because we can't seem to stop
people from getting them either.
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 21, 2017, 3:01:16 PM9/21/17
to
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:56:33 -0400, "Kurt V. Ullman"
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 9/21/17 1:53 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
>> <nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> It is like social security. We have a system financially based on a
>> life expectancy of 66-67 years and we increased that life expectancy
>> without changing the program.
> Life expectancy has nothing to do with SS. What IS important is life
>expectancy at 65 (you really don't care about the kid who croaks before
>65 in this area).
That is not really true. Best case for SS would be someone who died
<kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 9/21/17 1:53 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:06 +0000, Stormin' Norman
>> <nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> It is like social security. We have a system financially based on a
>> life expectancy of 66-67 years and we increased that life expectancy
>> without changing the program.
> Life expectancy has nothing to do with SS. What IS important is life
>expectancy at 65 (you really don't care about the kid who croaks before
>65 in this area).
before they elected to collect, whether that was 62 or 70 as long as
they worked.
A 50 year old who dies still kicked into the program for ~30 years.
The problem is the number who actually do live long enough to collect
and that is reflected in life expectancy.
> That has increased only a couple of years since the
>40s and has been compensated for.
> What is killing SS is that it has always been pay as you go with
>current workers paying for the retirement of the previous generation.
>Worked in the 60s when there were 5 workers for each retiree, not so
>much in 2010s with 2.9 per. Much of this is baby boom followed by baby
>bust.
running out of people in the bottom of the pyramid and there was never
any real "investment" in the first place.
SS is just another line item on a $20 trillion dollar debt.
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 21, 2017, 3:27:48 PM9/21/17
to
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:06:08 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>I clearly stated many posts ago that I took Gfre's
>comments to mean that decreasing the population could include
>decreasing FUTURE population by limiting increases
If you really believe Al Gore, that is meaningless. We will all be
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>I clearly stated many posts ago that I took Gfre's
>comments to mean that decreasing the population could include
>decreasing FUTURE population by limiting increases
dead long before that population decrease had any effect but if we are
all dead, problem solved.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 21, 2017, 7:52:50 PM9/21/17
to
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:51:10 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>>They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
>>>they see on that TV.
>>
>>The nerve!
>
>That is the thinking that got is into the problem we have. Everyone
>wants everything and nobody seems to have the power to stop them.
>The big leveling force may be nukes because we can't seem to stop
>people from getting them either.
Let me know when you give up your TV, car, air conditioning,
>>>They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
>>>they see on that TV.
>>
>>The nerve!
>
>That is the thinking that got is into the problem we have. Everyone
>wants everything and nobody seems to have the power to stop them.
>The big leveling force may be nukes because we can't seem to stop
>people from getting them either.
refrigerator and furnace.
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 22, 2017, 11:14:49 AM9/22/17
to
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 23:52:47 +0000, Stormin' Norman
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>>>They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
>>>>they see on that TV.
>>>
>>>The nerve!
>>
>>That is the thinking that got is into the problem we have. Everyone
>>wants everything and nobody seems to have the power to stop them.
>>The big leveling force may be nukes because we can't seem to stop
>>people from getting them either.
>
>Let me know when you give up your TV, car, air conditioning,
>refrigerator and furnace.
>
>
Thanks for confirming that you are just another hypocrite. On the one
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>>>They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
>>>>they see on that TV.
>>>
>>>The nerve!
>>
>>That is the thinking that got is into the problem we have. Everyone
>>wants everything and nobody seems to have the power to stop them.
>>The big leveling force may be nukes because we can't seem to stop
>>people from getting them either.
>
>Let me know when you give up your TV, car, air conditioning,
>refrigerator and furnace.
>
>
hand you want to criticize the 1st world for our energy gobbling
conveniences but you advocate 5 billion more people having them and
then complain about how the consequences of that energy production and
use is affecting the atmosphere.
You people always seem to ignore the fact that without massive
infusions of tax money, mostly borrowed, there would be no real
penetration of alternate energy sources or green products. Governments
in 3d world countries can barely keep their people fed and protected
from murder by roving gangs of thugs. They are not buying their
citizens solar panels and subsidizing electric cars. Their cars will
end up being 3d generation castoffs from the western world. They will
cook and heat their homes by burning whatever is available, including
those trees Al Gore sold us as carbon credits. If they get electricity
for a TV, it will come from a plant burning a fossil fuel of some
kind.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 22, 2017, 11:41:22 AM9/22/17
to
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:14:25 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 23:52:47 +0000, Stormin' Norman
><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
>>>>>they see on that TV.
>>>>
>>>>The nerve!
>>>
>>>That is the thinking that got is into the problem we have. Everyone
>>>wants everything and nobody seems to have the power to stop them.
>>>The big leveling force may be nukes because we can't seem to stop
>>>people from getting them either.
>>
>>Let me know when you give up your TV, car, air conditioning,
>>refrigerator and furnace.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for confirming that you are just another hypocrite. On the one
>hand you want to criticize the 1st world for our energy gobbling
>conveniences but you advocate 5 billion more people having them and
>then complain about how the consequences of that energy production and
>use is affecting the atmosphere.
Remarkable how you able to read things that were never written. You
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 23:52:47 +0000, Stormin' Norman
><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
>>>>>they see on that TV.
>>>>
>>>>The nerve!
>>>
>>>That is the thinking that got is into the problem we have. Everyone
>>>wants everything and nobody seems to have the power to stop them.
>>>The big leveling force may be nukes because we can't seem to stop
>>>people from getting them either.
>>
>>Let me know when you give up your TV, car, air conditioning,
>>refrigerator and furnace.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for confirming that you are just another hypocrite. On the one
>hand you want to criticize the 1st world for our energy gobbling
>conveniences but you advocate 5 billion more people having them and
>then complain about how the consequences of that energy production and
>use is affecting the atmosphere.
have a fanciful imagination.
>You people always seem to ignore the fact that without massive
>infusions of tax money, mostly borrowed, there would be no real
>penetration of alternate energy sources or green products. Governments
>in 3d world countries can barely keep their people fed and protected
>from murder by roving gangs of thugs. They are not buying their
>citizens solar panels and subsidizing electric cars. Their cars will
>end up being 3d generation castoffs from the western world. They will
>cook and heat their homes by burning whatever is available, including
>those trees Al Gore sold us as carbon credits. If they get electricity
>for a TV, it will come from a plant burning a fossil fuel of some
>kind.
of the western world can prevent people in less affluent and or more
populous nations from striving for and acquiring the same type of
conveniences and quality of life as we enjoy in this country.
As the population of the world is going to continue increasing, as the
level of education throughout the world will continue to increase,
people all over the planet will consume more and more energy.
I am convinced human beings as a whole must dramatically reduce the
amount of CO2 and other pollutants dumped into the environment.
As we have no practical way to control the population and no practical
way to keep the third world in a state of poverty and ignorance, the
only option left is to develop and promote cleaner energy production
and far more efficient use of organic fuels, while they are still in
use.
As a citizen and payer of taxes for over 70 years, I would much prefer
to see my tax monies and debt being used to create a better world
instead of spending untold trillions of dollars spent on preparing for
and making endless, unproductive war.
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 22, 2017, 12:59:14 PM9/22/17
to
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:41:07 +0000, Stormin' Norman
one hand you want to cut CO2 on the other hand you seem to advocate
for the dirtiest way of providing energy for the 3d world because that
is how they will have to do it..
Now you are making my case that the 1st world throwing Hummers into
the volcano will have no effect if the other 80% of the population is
going to reenact the 19th and 20th century.
>As a citizen and payer of taxes for over 70 years, I would much prefer
>to see my tax monies and debt being used to create a better world
>instead of spending untold trillions of dollars spent on preparing for
>and making endless, unproductive war.
Again, it is that 3d world that seems to be driving the move to war.
We certainly could have stepped away from every war since 1945 but if
I said it you would be telling me about the US responsibility to be
the world's policeman. For instance, I would not have intervened in
Korea, Vietnam, South America, Kuwait, Bosnia, Iraq/Syria or any of
those squabbles in Africa.
Communism was destined to fall from it's own weight and our wars may
have actually prolonged the time to that fall. I really do not care
which town head we buy oil from and the winner will still be lining up
to sell it to us. I also would not spend a dollar or a single American
life saving Israel.
<nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:14:25 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 23:52:47 +0000, Stormin' Norman
>><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
>>>>>>they see on that TV.
>>>>>
>>>>>The nerve!
>>>>
>>>>That is the thinking that got is into the problem we have. Everyone
>>>>wants everything and nobody seems to have the power to stop them.
>>>>The big leveling force may be nukes because we can't seem to stop
>>>>people from getting them either.
>>>
>>>Let me know when you give up your TV, car, air conditioning,
>>>refrigerator and furnace.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for confirming that you are just another hypocrite. On the one
>>hand you want to criticize the 1st world for our energy gobbling
>>conveniences but you advocate 5 billion more people having them and
>>then complain about how the consequences of that energy production and
>>use is affecting the atmosphere.
>
>Remarkable how you able to read things that were never written. You
>have a fanciful imagination.
I am just trying to rationalize the competing thoughts you posted. On
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:14:25 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 23:52:47 +0000, Stormin' Norman
>><nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything
>>>>>>they see on that TV.
>>>>>
>>>>>The nerve!
>>>>
>>>>That is the thinking that got is into the problem we have. Everyone
>>>>wants everything and nobody seems to have the power to stop them.
>>>>The big leveling force may be nukes because we can't seem to stop
>>>>people from getting them either.
>>>
>>>Let me know when you give up your TV, car, air conditioning,
>>>refrigerator and furnace.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for confirming that you are just another hypocrite. On the one
>>hand you want to criticize the 1st world for our energy gobbling
>>conveniences but you advocate 5 billion more people having them and
>>then complain about how the consequences of that energy production and
>>use is affecting the atmosphere.
>
>Remarkable how you able to read things that were never written. You
>have a fanciful imagination.
one hand you want to cut CO2 on the other hand you seem to advocate
for the dirtiest way of providing energy for the 3d world because that
is how they will have to do it..
the volcano will have no effect if the other 80% of the population is
going to reenact the 19th and 20th century.
>As a citizen and payer of taxes for over 70 years, I would much prefer
>to see my tax monies and debt being used to create a better world
>instead of spending untold trillions of dollars spent on preparing for
>and making endless, unproductive war.
We certainly could have stepped away from every war since 1945 but if
I said it you would be telling me about the US responsibility to be
the world's policeman. For instance, I would not have intervened in
Korea, Vietnam, South America, Kuwait, Bosnia, Iraq/Syria or any of
those squabbles in Africa.
Communism was destined to fall from it's own weight and our wars may
have actually prolonged the time to that fall. I really do not care
which town head we buy oil from and the winner will still be lining up
to sell it to us. I also would not spend a dollar or a single American
life saving Israel.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 22, 2017, 1:10:45 PM9/22/17
to
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:58:45 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>Remarkable how you able to read things that were never written. You
>>have a fanciful imagination.
>
>I am just trying to rationalize the competing thoughts you posted. On
>one hand you want to cut CO2 on the other hand you seem to advocate
>for the dirtiest way of providing energy for the 3d world because that
>is how they will have to do it..
>
Again, you have a fanciful imagination. Saying that I have advocated
>>Remarkable how you able to read things that were never written. You
>>have a fanciful imagination.
>
>I am just trying to rationalize the competing thoughts you posted. On
>one hand you want to cut CO2 on the other hand you seem to advocate
>for the dirtiest way of providing energy for the 3d world because that
>is how they will have to do it..
>
anything that you cannot provide a citation for, is disingenuous, if
not outright lying.
>
>>Contrary to what you believe, neither the United States or the rest
>>of the western world can prevent people in less affluent and or more
>>populous nations from striving for and acquiring the same type of
>>conveniences and quality of life as we enjoy in this country.
>>
>>As the population of the world is going to continue increasing, as the
>>level of education throughout the world will continue to increase,
>>people all over the planet will consume more and more energy.
>>
>>I am convinced human beings as a whole must dramatically reduce the
>>amount of CO2 and other pollutants dumped into the environment.
>>
>>As we have no practical way to control the population and no practical
>>way to keep the third world in a state of poverty and ignorance, the
>>only option left is to develop and promote cleaner energy production
>>and far more efficient use of organic fuels, while they are still in
>>use.
>>
>
>Now you are making my case that the 1st world throwing Hummers into
>the volcano will have no effect if the other 80% of the population is
>going to reenact the 19th and 20th century.
for you to ask for clarification instead making asinine assumptions
and absurd allegations.
>
>>As a citizen and payer of taxes for over 70 years, I would much prefer
>>to see my tax monies and debt being used to create a better world
>>instead of spending untold trillions of dollars spent on preparing for
>>and making endless, unproductive war.
>
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 22, 2017, 2:57:05 PM9/22/17
to
world should have all of the 1st world conveniences without explaining
how they can afford 22d century energy production?
Stormin' Norman
Sep 22, 2017, 3:17:20 PM9/22/17
to
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:56:39 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>If you don't understand what I am writing, it would be more productive
>>for you to ask for clarification instead making asinine assumptions
>>and absurd allegations.
>
>How else can I take it when you are making the case of why the 3d
>world should have all of the 1st world conveniences without explaining
>how they can afford 22d century energy production?
You are being obtuse and disingenuous. I will explain it to you
>>
>>If you don't understand what I am writing, it would be more productive
>>for you to ask for clarification instead making asinine assumptions
>>and absurd allegations.
>
>How else can I take it when you are making the case of why the 3d
>world should have all of the 1st world conveniences without explaining
>how they can afford 22d century energy production?
again.
"Why the 3rd world should have....." What an absurd remark. How do
you propose the 1.3 billion inhabitants of India or the 1.5 billion
inhabitants of China be prevented from striving for, obtaining and
using energy consuming devices? For that matter, just how do you
propose keeping the people of any nation "down on the farm"?
The point is, people are basically the same everywhere. Most people
would like to be cool when they are hot, warm when they are cold, fed
when hungry, communicate with others, travel where they wish, etc.
The point is, you cannot stop the spread and advancement of
technology. Hence, if people are going to consume energy, if nations
are going to produce ever more energy, then, we as a species must
ensure that we move towards the replacement of dirty, nonrenewable
energy sources with cleaner, safe, renewable sources.
When solving problems, you eliminate the ridiculous (thermonuclear
population control) and you find the solution which resolves the issue
and produces the greatest ROI.
BurfordTJustice
Sep 22, 2017, 3:21:13 PM9/22/17
to
What a load of babble that says squat.
"Stormin' Norman" <nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote in message
news:4inasc1jtmmae1ldu...@4ax.com...
"Stormin' Norman" <nor...@schwarzkopf.invalid> wrote in message
news:4inasc1jtmmae1ldu...@4ax.com...
gfre...@aol.com
Sep 22, 2017, 9:39:48 PM9/22/17
to
spending our money on learning how to live in a warmer world because
there is nothing we can do about it unless we scrub a couple billion
off the population.
If you believe what Al was saying 8 years ago, we have already gone
over the tipping point and all of this bullshit is moot.
Stormin' Norman
Sep 23, 2017, 8:30:33 AM9/23/17
to
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 21:39:22 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>Which brings us right back to my original statement. We should be
>spending our money on learning how to live in a warmer world because
>there is nothing we can do about it unless we scrub a couple billion
>off the population.
OK, you win........ ;-)
>Which brings us right back to my original statement. We should be
>spending our money on learning how to live in a warmer world because
>there is nothing we can do about it unless we scrub a couple billion
>off the population.
>If you believe what Al was saying 8 years ago, we have already gone
>over the tipping point and all of this bullshit is moot.
0 new messages