Flat earthers also have opinions.
Still waiting for a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates 8 , 9 or 10 billion people is too much.
I’ve lost track of this thread, but I just listened to the “Seeker ELEMENTS” video. It has some good points. I don’t understand why @triplex69 didn’t highlight them. Maybe you don’t want to come out and say you are for gender equality, or you don’t want to sound socialist.
The point it makes that I agree with is that a small percentage of people are causing the AGW and pollution problems. It somewhat skirts the idea that if we brought things like modern medicine to poor, high population countries, their numbers would come down because stabilizing culture stabilizes population growth.
It also completely ignores the problem of selling this idea to the richest high resource users, and even the top 10% or so, like upper middle class America.
This breaks some rule. I’m not sure exactly which one, something about being repetitive. You don’t get to come here and demand a peer reviewed paper that shows exactly how many people the earth can sustain. There is no consensus on that. “Inquiry” means, present your ideas, show the publicly available you used to arrive at them, discuss where they are strong or weak, compare and contrast your ideas, have a drink, chill out.
The problem triple69 is that science isn’t about easy answers, it’s about studying, and learning, and collecting data and allowing the facts to drive your understanding. Ever hear of Consilience of Data?
What’s most galling is listen to clowns talk about how science and technology will save us from over population - yet, how the heck will that happen, if most of those exact same people no long believe in science and and no longer respect the need for honesty in this discussion?
Like this clown “69” (does that refer to head up a keister or something like that?) spits out questions and challenges without the slightest interest in reading, hearing or learning anything. He’s just playing a game, of giving himself points, for deceiving to others.
While they dream of 8, 9, 10 billion people existing on this Earth, they’re thinking of the world of a century ago, not the world of today and tomorrow. Things are changing fast and the cascading consequences haven’t really started kicking in, we’re still in the warm up phase, oh but the climate engine does just keep on, keeping on, and gaining more heat and energy and atmospheric moisture.
When I was a kid hitchhiking around, or hiking around, or working outdoors, I got to fancy weather as my friendly adversary and loved meeting the challenge. Now we are witnessing as we humans are driving our climate engine into an angry destroyer. Not near as much fun anymore.
# Arctic heat record affirmed: A fuel for climate change? | DW News
#AGU21 Press Conference: The Threat from Thwaites: The retreat of Antarctica’s riskiest glacier
Focus is on carbon based economy and rates of consumption not people per se. The world is actually slowing in population growth in contrast to the fearmongering by some here with their take on exponential population growth
It’s wrong to blame ‘overpopulation’ for climate change
No he did not and I seriously doubt CNBC said so. I watch CNBC and not once did I hear anything about him saving anyone.
The dotard et al wanted to let the virus fly, infecting several million and killing millions, believing that would reach herd immunity. This is not true. The dotard went about infecting as many people as he could via parties and the BIG one, forcing his security to ride in the car with the windows up and him unmasked. He could have killed them or at least a couple of them. Not sure if he did kill at least one if not two.
Of course his minions believe this is the way to go and they’ve been doing it since he suggested it. Some still don’t believe the virus is real.
He murdered 400,000 people indirectly with COVID and those in the hospital when he was leaving, died shortly there after, being it over 500,000.
Blockquote As the pandemic ravages the US, the Centers for Disease Control has updated its forecast to 83,000 deaths over the next three weeks. The expected death toll before the end of President Donald Trump’s term stands at 400,000. A disturbing report to the members of the US House of Representatives suggests getting people infected in pursuit of ‘herd immunity’ was the Trump administration’s plan all along. Two new studies show the approach was dead wrong.
He killed people plain and simple. He didn’t save people. More than half the time, if not all the time, he didn’t know Jack about what he was talking about or didn’t care to know what he was talking about, because he had his own agenda to kill people. That’s all he was about and the virus gave him the opportunity to kill more Latinos, Native Americans, Blacks, and those with health issues. He doesn’t give a damn about anyone except himself and maybe not even himself given that he manage to get COVID, land in the hospital, and then leave AMA in a very horrifying manner (the attempt to kill more with COVID). So please stop with the BS about your Fuhrer.
Biden hasn’t done so well on Covid either with reopening schools against the science Biden Omicron measures too little, too late for fast-moving virus -experts | Reuters
No he doesn’t. He only has just over 300,000 and that’s because those were properly dotard followers, as well as people who don’t believe that COVID exists and died denying they had it (I’ve spoken to nurses who cared for these patients, one of whom was 19). These people would not listen to President Biden or the scientists and they died for it, possibly taking a few elderly and those with health issues with them. President Biden didn’t use the virus to kill anyone, like the dotard did.
Interesting article triplex, thing is, I don’t think you understand it. You are correct, but only on the surface. I see this a lot on forum discussions, someone comes in with some formula they found, like IPAT, and they point out that I haven’t heard of it, then conclude they are smarter than me. Maybe you are, I don’t know. So far, you have only challenged people here, told them they are wrong, and linked some links.
I think most people understand intuitively that you can’t just “blame people”, as the article says. I don’t think you understand that when I say “population”, I’m not “blaming” a person in Africa for having excess children. I’m blaming a system, run by, created by, and maintained by, people who own land and the means to produce whatever crap there is at every store you and I go to. I don’t have much control over that. That system needs a large pool of cheap labor, and to get people to work like slaves in factories, you need to give them the choice of that, or an even worse existence in subsistence living directly off the land.
My guess is, IPAT is just another attempt at coming up with a technological solution to a human problem. As long as the comfortable people, the “A” in the formula are either tolerant of, or powerless to change, a system that draws resources, including human resources from the poorest places on earth, that system will continue. Ask anyone what can be done about chronic starvation, they won’t be able to answer, they’ll say something about it being a distribution problem. That ignorance is how the powerlessness is maintained.
1 Like
“per se”
Doesn’t mean it’s not an important factor. If you make a pretense out of honesty, then you can’t isolate and ignore factors according to your personal whims, it’s all part and parcel of the same formula.
The “technology” portion of the IPAT formula is also moving in the wrong direction, Ramaswami said. Since 2000, the world has used more resources to make less stuff, largely because globalization has moved production to places where energy systems and machinery are less efficient.
Another U.N. study has found that inequality within and between countries makes them less effective at tackling climate change.
A lack of social cohesion and the concentration of power in the hands of wealthy people — who are more insulated from climate change’s worst impacts — makes nations less likely to take the kinds of collective actions needed, analysts found.
In turn, the effects of warming disproportionately harm low-income communities, which makes inequality even worse. …
Re: GOPers - aka trumpsters
Example: Ted Cruz
Postulate: When kissing @$$, a slip of the tongue can land you in deep $#!+
(For details, search Cruz licks Hannity’s boots … or something like that)
Interesting : the term GOP is so close to the term GOR as invented by John Norman.
In case one is not familiar with the epic story of GOR, check this out…It’s deliciously cheap!
This is every Republican dream.
I have read some gor books, as i discovered them in my 20th, during a summer session in a USA University.
The first ones were fun, even if not finely written, then the author, John Norman, turned to ideology.
The basic tenet is that women are natural slaves and men are natural masters. Both are happy when they fulfill their roles. And he explains that in hundred of boring and repetitive pages.
Yes, a natural Republican theme… 
Yes they are. The difference is that they use that boring instrument of the law, rather than armed response to violent protest. Note that 700 people have been charged with criminal behavior and that is just at the lowest levels. More to come in due time.
Do you want Biden to use strong-arm methods to quell the insurrection like they do in dictatorships?
Do you think that in Russia an action like Jan 6 would have ended with just one shot being fired in defense of the government headquarters?
Correct me if I am wrong but no one has been charged with domestic terrorism.
All the Dems are focused on is Jan 6th -,the new Russia gate . All matters regarding voter suppression is going unchallenged -,free hit for the Repugs
Kind of a hobby of mine.
1 Like
and
For the People Act of 2021
This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government.
I thought I saw this was another one Manchin is holding up.
What an amazing response. Masterclass. The correction was for domestic terrorism charges. The second comment was about actions by the Dems
Completely nit-picky, just like the initial comment, and did nothing to move the conversation forward in any way. Instead, reduce complex legal decisions to “line X has not been crossed, therefore that proves something, which I won’t actually state, just imply, then run away.”
1 Like