patrick.net

In 2008, ABC News had this to say about what the climate would be like in 2015:

https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/mark-simone/content/2018-05-04-watch-abc-news-in-2008-predicting-that-nyc-will-be-underwater-by-2015/?fbclid=IwAR0uT6-N8cMMnT5GnAQZS4Nx-A_XdjGjtBVbNWlihqzzG_VjD2bjYhIoDKU#.XZFDpqD_R1E.facebook

GreaterNYCDude says

Personally I don't think that setting aggressive emission targets is a bad thing in and of itself,

Emissions of what? Harmful gases or particular matter causing diseases? Sure. CO2? Stupid and unnecessary. It's a good scheme to additionally tax the population though.

rocketjoe79 says

Climate Models cannot be accurate 100 years in the future - you can't accurately model a chaotic system.

Climate models are not a prediction. They are a projection based on quantitative knowledge.
Instead of focusing on models, just focus on empirical data coming out now.

RC2006 says

I think we do have an effect on climate change but think it’s exaggerated.

The media exaggerate it because they are trying to justify short term actions to prevent something 100yrs down the road.
Things are not bad now, or even 20yrs from now. They will get really bad 100 yrs from now if we do nothing.
And it takes a huge amount of time to turn around this oil tanker and change infrastructures.
So there is a gap between perceived problem and required action.

Heraclitusstudent says

So there is a gap between perceived problem and required action.

Now we have a world obesity crisis.

Extrapolation with imperfect information = useless at best, dangerous at worst.

Iranian_Oil_Burse says

CO2? Stupid and unnecessary. It's a good scheme to additionally tax the population though.

So we tax income earned through work instead? That sounds like the worst thing to tax. I'd rather tax something that comes from a foreign country that hates us regardless of the CO2 problem (or non-problem). Sort of like tariffs; you know, the thing that funded the entire federal government for the first hundred years. The biggest problem with the CO2 alarmists is that they then propose really dumb ideas.

jazz_music says

Food prices rising.

LOL.

jazz_music says

I see what you did there, you changed the subject to obesity. And then added a LOL. Way to troll.

Now go shopping and see what happens over every month.

I think it's safe to safe obese people aren't starving to death.

Food prices don't impact obesity? hahahaha

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-food/venezuelans-report-big-weight-losses-in-2017-as-hunger-hits-idUSKCN1G52HA

Demonstrate the predictions made by the climate "model" is accurate in global climate change.

If this cannot be done, global climate change isn't even a scientific theory, and this does indeed seem to be the case.

SunnyvaleCA says

Iranian_Oil_Burse says

CO2? Stupid and unnecessary. It's a good scheme to additionally tax the population though.

So we tax income earned through work instead?

What do you mean 'instead'? They want to tax us in addition to what they squeeze now. Not "instead", silly.

jazz_music says

NoCoupForYou says

jazz_music says

Food prices rising.

I see what you did there, you changed the subject to obesity. And then added a LOL. Way to troll.

Now go shopping and see what happens over every month.

Are you trying to say that despite the rising food prices the incomes raise so fast that people have more than enough money not only to feed themselves but to actually stuff their faces until they barely fit through your average door? No disagreement from me, buddy. Don't forget an iPhone in every pocket too.

NoCoupForYou says

Extrapolation with imperfect information = useless at best, dangerous at worst.

Projection is not just extrapolation.
The point about chaotic systems is worthless. You could take a box containing gas with cool atoms on 1 side and hot atoms on the other side and let them mix.
You couldn't predict where 1 atom will move 5 minutes from now because the Brownian movement is chaotic in nature.
However if you look global variables like equilibrium temperature and pressure, you know exactly where it's going to be.

The same goes for earth. If you know less heat gets out. You know it will get warmer somewhere.

The point about chaotic systems is worthless.

Fundamental lack of understanding of the science.

The point is there are aggregates vars that are not chaotic. Even in the 3 bodies system.

NoCoupForYou says

Population growth remains the worse problem we have, at least as long as most of humanity is stuck on this planet.

People talk of the good old time when we were more in 'balance with nature'. But being in balance with nature, for most of history meant that the population was regulated by famine, epidemics or wars. Most kids died before 5. That's what balance with nature is all about. Escaping that condition will always be under the threat of catastrophic failure.

Heraclitusstudent says

Population growth remains the worse problem we have, at least as long as most of humanity is stuck on this planet.

Disagreed. As more investment in fewer children is deemed more important and lifestyle improves, as well as Pervert "Lifestyle" Acceptance, the numbers of children per woman decline. This has been a trend that was first seen in the West, it's fullest form is in East Asia (inc. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea where no one-child policy was enforced), and is now spreading to the developing world.

The trend is also pronounced in developing countries like Brazil and Thailand, not just developed service economies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46118103

Alot of what neoliberalism is, is landlords and cheap labor dependent enterprises fighting against a population decline, which is already felt in the form of smaller successive generations of young people.

In a frontier environment, like extraterrestial colonies, this might likely be altered as small, more isolated and closed groups tend to have more children, but will fall when lifestyle improves, the economy diversifies, and living space becomes more constrained.

The two Bugimen of Malthus, used by Ehrlich and others extensively, to prove we're all doomed!

Soylent Green ain't gonna happen.



If we don't eat the babies we're all DOOMED. DOOMED!

www.youtube.com/embed/potlDrRI01A

Iranian_Oil_Burse says

Emissions of what? Harmful gases or particular matter causing diseases? Sure. CO2?

For what it's worth I've designed and commissioned many pollution control systems for a wide range of nasty stuff... CO2 gets all the press

So I'm all for clean air (and water). Aa much as I like the idea of solar / geothermal combination systems rather than heating oil, mining the metals that go into the panels is a dirty process... green energy is a bit of a misnomer in my book...

Heraclitusstudent says

NoCoupForYou says

Wait. Lake Erie was dead?

NoCoupForYou says

the numbers of children per woman decline.

Not fast enough in areas like Africa. Like Nigeria.
We are already far beyond what the earth can provide in the long terms in terms of energy and other resources. We are now in a race toward using less, and stabilizing population at the same time before we hit the wall.
And there is a wall.

Contrived Chicken Little panics have always been good business and guaranteed robust sales. No need to abandon the strategy now. Just look at all the staring-into-the-distance LibbyFuck Global Warming subscribers they were able to garner in a few short years, and actually make them feel smart while they're being snake oiled and conned.

Heraclitusstudent says

And there is a wall.

Perhaps, but nobody knows where the wall is. Thomas Robert Malthus died in 1834.

Heraclitusstudent says

Not fast enough in areas like Africa. Like Nigeria.

The world population growth rate has been falling since the 1950's.

The world population growth rate has been falling since the 1950's.

World population growth is a tangential issue. It is 1st World population that matters. We cannot sustain a 1st World lifestyle if the 1st World population doubles, regardless of numbers games with "rate decreases."

HeadSet says

The world population growth rate has been falling since the 1950's.

World population growth is a tangential issue. It is 1st World population that matters. We cannot sustain a 1st World lifestyle if the 1st World population doubles, regardless of numbers games with "rate decreases."

Most First World States have negative replacement population rates.

Why are Euro states promoting immigration? Because there are no workers to replace retiring Polish and other "Second World" state workers. Germany, France, etc., need more cheap labor. They were getting these people from the failed USSR breakup "-stan" states for a while. Where are they getting them from now? Muslim refugees. And without cultural acclimatization, they are instead allowing Muslim ghetto cities, where Sharia law rules.

Immigration without Acculturation is Invasion. The same goes for the USA.

rocketjoe79 says

Why are Euro states promoting immigration? Because there are no workers to replace retiring Polish and other "Second World" state workers. Germany, France, etc., need more cheap labor. They were getting these people from the failed USSR breakup "-stan" states for a while. Where are they getting them from now? Muslim refugees. And without cultural acclimatization, they are instead allowing Muslim ghetto cities, where Sharia law rules.

Assuming they work. Many do not. If the US, which is certainly tougher than Europe, has 90% of refugees still on public assistance in two years, I can't imagine what it's like for Syrian/African refugees in Germany or Sweden.

There's also the "I'm entitled to live well off the rental properties I inherited" problem. Those who depend on such income, as many established wealthy families do, are threatened by a shrinking population as this creates the need to offer more living space and/or cheaper rents. It also makes Labor more scarce relative to Capital, another threat to landlords and firms.

It's a long noted point of cognitive dissonance that the people who scream we need immigrants, were the same ones flipping out when Hungary introduced low interest loans for married couples with children as "Fascism". Apparently it's okay to bring in people from the far side of the world, but not okay to encourage your own to have more children.

I can only imagine the Leftist reaction if Trump offered $20k at 2.5% interest to any married couple having a second child. "BREEDERS! FASCISTS! ... but bring in more Syrian Refugees and pay them $30k/year or more outright in Social Welfare Benefits."