Remember me
▼ Content

COP21 - Population policy


COP21 - Population policy03-12-2015 16:37
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




In spite of the importance I don't think population policy is something they negotiate at COP's yet..?


However I think they at least have to ask all countries at COP21 what there population policy is and what it does for climate and write it down.

Do they do that and can the public maybe read the answers somewhere..?


There is a huge difference between the UN estimate red, orange and green.
And it clearly matters too much to emissions and sustainability just to be ignored.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg





­
03-12-2015 16:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote:And it clearly matters too much to emissions and sustainability just to be ignored. ­


Actually, all fear-mongering should be ignored, right?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 17:49
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
You are just desperate for something to panic about.
Edited on 03-12-2015 17:49
03-12-2015 18:12
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­­



It is more meant to avoid fear and panic in the long run but it is also simple math.

If the world increase the population by 100% instead of reducing it there will be a huge effect on important data used at COP's.





­
03-12-2015 20:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Jakob wrote:
­­



It is more meant to avoid fear and panic in the long run but it is also simple math.

If the world increase the population by 100% instead of reducing it there will be a huge effect on important data used at COP's.





­

Justifying population controls for any reason, including climate change, environmental, economic, political, or any other reason must end in only one practical conclusion:

Murder sanctioned by the State Leviathan to satisfy a politically correct need.

You first.

Now...do you want to discuss how controls through enforced birth control methods don't work?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-12-2015 20:23
03-12-2015 20:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
IBdaMann wrote:
Jakob wrote:And it clearly matters too much to emissions and sustainability just to be ignored. ­


Actually, all fear-mongering should be ignored, right?


.


Absolutely.

This is just one component of the combined religion of the Socialist Environmental plebe. Population controls are justified through the 'damage' inflicted upon <pick a region or planet> caused by man's inherent destructive nature. A nature that must be controlled by a State Leviathan to save him from himself. In other words, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism. It is to place the State in a divine position of authority. The State becomes God.

Of all the religions in the world, this one has been shown to be the most destructive in history. It kills by the millions, and leaves those that survive in misery...except for the elites, of course.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2015 10:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
Jakob wrote:It is more meant to avoid fear and panic in the long run but it is also simple math.

If the world increase the population by 100% instead of reducing it there will be a huge effect on important data used at COP.


I don't care about the data they use at COP.

Nobody else does.

I do care about humans.

You want to kill people. I don't. I will oppose you.

You are a prat.
04-12-2015 11:41
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­­




If you think COP is about harming humans you just know too little about it.

Do you also dislike the sun because you are afraid of the dark..?



The longer an overpopulation problem is ignored the worse it can be for the future humans.
Therefore it is a good idea to be prepared and act in time as we already have discussed it another place. That is of course mostly if you find it important for humans not to starve or become so frustrated they start wars.


Looking for solutions:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/overpopulation-how-to-solve-the-problem--d24-e780.php
Negative waves:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/overpopulation-how-not-to-solve-the-problem--d6-e783.php#post_4057



­
­
04-12-2015 12:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Jakob wrote:And it clearly matters too much to emissions and sustainability just to be ignored. ­


Actually, all fear-mongering should be ignored, right?


.


Absolutely.

This is just one component of the combined religion of the Socialist Environmental plebe. Population controls are justified through the 'damage' inflicted upon <pick a region or planet> caused by man's inherent destructive nature. A nature that must be controlled by a State Leviathan to save him from himself. In other words, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism. It is to place the State in a divine position of authority. The State becomes God.


Well put! "Socialist Environmental plebe"! Excellent! (although I still prefer "climate brown shirt")

Into the Night wrote: Of all the religions in the world, this one has been shown to be the most destructive in history. It kills by the millions, and leaves those that survive in misery...except for the elites, of course.

Along with Marxism, Global Warming tells its worshipers that it is not a religion. This is why Global Warming is mass marketed to the stupid, the scientifically illiterate, the gullibe and those who generally cannot discern religion from science,i.e. those who will most eagerly fall for the scam.

Pop Quiz: What religion's followers will admit "I'm no scientist" and without missing a beat when facing a differing opinion will bulveristically quip "you need to learn science" ? (hint: there's only one)


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-12-2015 12:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote:
­­If you think COP is about harming humans you just know too little about it.

If you think COP is helpful and not a huge money-wasting boondoggle then you are gullible.

If you believe that an atmospheric gas has the mystical, magical superpower to increase temperature then you are gullible.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-12-2015 19:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Jakob wrote:
­­




If you think COP is about harming humans you just know too little about it.

Do you also dislike the sun because you are afraid of the dark..?



The longer an overpopulation problem is ignored the worse it can be for the future humans.
Therefore it is a good idea to be prepared and act in time as we already have discussed it another place. That is of course mostly if you find it important for humans not to starve or become so frustrated they start wars.


Looking for solutions:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/overpopulation-how-to-solve-the-problem--d24-e780.php
Negative waves:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/overpopulation-how-not-to-solve-the-problem--d6-e783.php#post_4057



­
­

If you think population controls by controlling births in any way is going to work, then you need to look at gun control laws and how well they work.

There is only one solution left to a government attempting population controls. Murder.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2015 10:38
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­­



I wonder what kind of primitive culture people come from when killing and murder is the first and only thought that will glue to their mind.
Development by debating must be very limited in such a place.

I saw a documentary about a doctor who helped people in very poor parts of the world by traveling from place to place offering them an operation so they could not breed anymore and people were happy about it.
So I think a culture that will start killing in such a situation must be even more brutal and primitive than the most primitive parts of the world I have ever seen.






­­
06-12-2015 02:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Jakob wrote:
­­



I wonder what kind of primitive culture people come from when killing and murder is the first and only thought that will glue to their mind.
Development by debating must be very limited in such a place.

I saw a documentary about a doctor who helped people in very poor parts of the world by traveling from place to place offering them an operation so they could not breed anymore and people were happy about it.
So I think a culture that will start killing in such a situation must be even more brutal and primitive than the most primitive parts of the world I have ever seen.






­­

You may choose to live in your wonderful state of ignorance, or you may choose to join the rest of the human race.

Yes, the world is brutal, but it is also beautiful. There is both. If you choose to focus only on the negative, well, I guess I am witnessing the development of another case of agoraphobia.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2015 13:41
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




I must say I find it very hard to make any sense of the complaining if it is not coming from a very brutal and primitive culture.

I have been looking for good intentions but I think it is just too ugly and in the ugliness I can easy find some ugly motives to fit much better than any good ones.

It could go something like this:

Maybe the complaining is mostly about some strange western people who don't think poor people should have the same ability as rich people to have safe sex.

Or Maybe they are just not experienced enough to know that it sometimes can be nice for grown up people who love each other to have sex without making more children.

Or they may be an even stranger total selfish variety that dislikes sex and therefore they will not understand any need from anybody at all.

Or they may be pedophile people who just can't get enough neglected children for themselves.

Or maybe they are shareholders that can't get employees cheep enough to maximize their profit.

Or maybe they are warriors who wants more soldiers.

Or maybe they are the real civil killers at work trying in a sadistic way to kill more of the 3. world with AIDS and starvation.




Well... - I don't know about other peoples motives I just recommend that people think for themselves.


I think it is very easy to see that most of the big problems in the world will be smaller and life better if the world population will decrease itself.
In fact I find it hard to find another issue about climate and sustainability that is just as important and of course I hope someday the rest of the world will see it too.





­
06-12-2015 16:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote:I must say I find it very hard to make any sense of the complaining if it is not coming from a very brutal and primitive culture.

You are being very unclear.

All I can understand from your incoherent whining is the people who disagree with some unknown position of your are very, very bad people.

Who are these really bad people and with what clearly-stated position of yours do they disgree?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-12-2015 19:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Jakob wrote:
­




I must say I find it very hard to make any sense of the complaining if it is not coming from a very brutal and primitive culture.

I have been looking for good intentions but I think it is just too ugly and in the ugliness I can easy find some ugly motives to fit much better than any good ones.

It could go something like this:

Maybe the complaining is mostly about some strange western people who don't think poor people should have the same ability as rich people to have safe sex.

Or Maybe they are just not experienced enough to know that it sometimes can be nice for grown up people who love each other to have sex without making more children.

Or they may be an even stranger total selfish variety that dislikes sex and therefore they will not understand any need from anybody at all.

Or they may be pedophile people who just can't get enough neglected children for themselves.

Or maybe they are shareholders that can't get employees cheep enough to maximize their profit.

Or maybe they are warriors who wants more soldiers.

Or maybe they are the real civil killers at work trying in a sadistic way to kill more of the 3. world with AIDS and starvation.




Well... - I don't know about other peoples motives I just recommend that people think for themselves.


I think it is very easy to see that most of the big problems in the world will be smaller and life better if the world population will decrease itself.
In fact I find it hard to find another issue about climate and sustainability that is just as important and of course I hope someday the rest of the world will see it too.





­

The world has moved beyond your comprehension, I see.

There will always be people who will have sex regardless of the law. Sorry, but that's a higher law of nature. It IS our responsibility to reproduce.

Voluntary population control does not work. The government will be forced to mutilate those who do not comply. They will fight back. The government will be forced to abort babies for political reasons (murder), respond to the dissidents who do not want to be mutilated or have their kids aborted (murder), and otherwise reduce the population (murder).

What is unclear about this?


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2015 23:57
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




@IBdaMann


I was just making a general point of view about some possible motives for somebody being the last to realize an overpopulation problem and why they maybe per definition will be against doing anything about it.


On the other hand you should maybe work on your trust in government and science.
You live in a democracy, don't you..?

You wrote:
If you believe that an atmospheric gas has the mystical, magical superpower to increase temperature then you are gullible.


Maybe you need to see this:
Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk








Into the Night wrote:
It IS our responsibility to reproduce.


Where and from whom did you learn that..?


Into the Night wrote:
Voluntary population control does not work.


In some countries in Europe it has worked just fine for decades.

If there had not arrived a lot of refugees there population size would have decreased pretty fast towards a sustainable number.




­
­
­­
07-12-2015 01:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Jakob wrote:
­




@IBdaMann


I was just making a general point of view about some possible motives for somebody being the last to realize an overpopulation problem and why they maybe per definition will be against doing anything about it.


On the other hand you should maybe work on your trust in government and science.
You live in a democracy, don't you..?­­

We live in a Constitutional Federated Republic that is democratically elected. It is a system built because we do not trust government. As far as science, government has no place there. It is not about blind trust in the 'science' either. That's why hypothesis must be falsifiable.

Blind trust is the act of a zombie. Even a little child carries suspicions about things.

Jakob wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It IS our responsibility to reproduce.­­


Where and from whom did you learn that..?­­
Logic. If we fail to reproduce, we die off. Do you not feel responsible for the human species? Isn't that the reason you try to solve it this way, to save the world for those that survive?

Who are you to tell people when they can reproduce?

Jakob wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Voluntary population control does not work.


In some countries in Europe it has worked just fine for decades.­­
Name them. I know China is facing some real problems because of their population controls. Problems that will affect the entire nation and many nations around the world.

Jakob wrote:
If there had not arrived a lot of refugees there population size would have decreased pretty fast towards a sustainable number.
­­


Who decides what a 'sustainable' number is? Me? You? IBdaMann? And on what basis? Gut feel, justified by printing charts and graphs?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-12-2015 01:22
07-12-2015 12:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote:@IBdaMann
I was just making a general point of view about some possible motives for somebody being the last to realize an overpopulation problem and why they maybe per definition will be against doing anything about it.

OK, so I thought you were trying to express one thing but I see the wording "motives for being the last to realize" and "per definition being against" and I'm still not clear what your point is.

No one controls, or otherwise has motives for, what s/he realizes.

I am unaware of any definition associated with disagreeing with your opinion.

Are you stating that you believe there is an impending population problem and that you wonder why there are evil people who are against government-mandated abortions or sterilizations?

Jakob wrote: On the other hand you should maybe work on your trust in government and science.

You should work on your gullibility and stop blindly trusting whatever WACKY things you are directed to believe by political entities and religious clergy. Otherwise you might end up believing in Global Warming or some other destructive religion under the unrealistic, delusional belief that you are saving humanity.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-12-2015 22:43
crankProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
.

- think, we are much too many people ...
We COULD provide free food and contraception for the entire world population. That would not be murder.

.
12-12-2015 07:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
crank wrote:- think, we are much too many people ...
We COULD provide free food and contraception for the entire world population. That would not be murder..

When you say "we"...were you including me? I can't provide free food and contraception for the entire world population.

Would YOU take care of that for me? Thanks. I'm all for it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-12-2015 09:50
crankProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
.

IBdaMann >
When you say "we"...were you including me?

'We' are the rich countries. I just thought it would be a good investment.



I'm all for it.

Great! Now we have a start.

.
14-12-2015 11:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
crank wrote:Great! Now we have a start.
.

As long as you will cover my share.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-12-2015 18:16
crankProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
.

IBdaMann >
As long as you will cover my share.

Oki then - think, I'll survive that.

.
22-12-2015 23:00
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Population will be 50 billion by 2100.
23-12-2015 11:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Population will be 50 billion by 2100.


If so it will be a well fed and very rich 50 billion people.
12-01-2016 22:54
Patecroute
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Jakob wrote:
­
I think it is very easy to see that most of the big problems in the world will be smaller and life better if the world population will decrease itself.
In fact I find it hard to find another issue about climate and sustainability that is just as important and of course I hope someday the rest of the world will see it too.


­


I could not agree more.
I am glad somebody has the courage to at least talk about it.

I don't really understand other people's reactions, which can be sorted in 2 categories:

- "Population control is wrong/unethical"
Fine, that's just another point of view. It does not mean you have to be angry and rude to express it.
And feel free to provide alternate solutions to the problems that triggered this discussion (climate change, Earth's finite resources, etc...).

- "Even if valid, population control is hard/unachievable."
It still does not hurt to talk about it to try and think about constructive approaches.

Cheers.
13-01-2016 01:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Patecroute wrote:
Jakob wrote:
­
I think it is very easy to see that most of the big problems in the world will be smaller and life better if the world population will decrease itself.
In fact I find it hard to find another issue about climate and sustainability that is just as important and of course I hope someday the rest of the world will see it too.


­


I could not agree more.
I am glad somebody has the courage to at least talk about it.

I don't really understand other people's reactions, which can be sorted in 2 categories:

- "Population control is wrong/unethical"
Fine, that's just another point of view. It does not mean you have to be angry and rude to express it.
And feel free to provide alternate solutions to the problems that triggered this discussion (climate change, Earth's finite resources, etc...).

- "Even if valid, population control is hard/unachievable."

It does mean I have to be angry and rude to express it. I will not condone murder, government forced abortions, or government sex controls. These are the thoughts of a sociopath. I abhor them.

It still does not hurt to talk about it to try and think about constructive approaches.

Cheers.



The Parrot Killer
13-01-2016 02:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Patecroute wrote: I don't really understand other people's reactions, which can be sorted in 2 categories:

You omitted the 3rd category:

3) it isn't a problem so we shouldn't be discussing "solutions." If it isn't broken, don't screw with it pretending to "fix" it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2016 17:57
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Population is constrained by food supply, not by government regulations. China learned it the hard way.
Edited on 13-01-2016 17:58
14-01-2016 02:29
Patecroute
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
IBdaMann wrote:
You omitted the 3rd category:

.


I did not, it's simply off-topic so not worth mentioning.

IBdaMann wrote:
3) it isn't a problem so we shouldn't be discussing "solutions." If it isn't broken, don't screw with it pretending to "fix" it.
.


Why not if I find it interesting/challenging?
The fact that you perceive overpopulation as a non-issue is your opinion, which I respect. I have a different opinion, and in that capacity, I don't mind thinking about a solution.
If it bothers you, nothing forces you to read these threads (even less to participate), but please don't tell me what I should or should not discuss. I live in America and, last time I checked, free speech is still more or less a right. Are you a non-believer of free speech as well?
14-01-2016 14:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Patecroute wrote: I did not, it's simply off-topic so not worth mentioning.

I see, you're another one of those people who doesn't understand that discussion forums are for discussion amongst multiple people with differing viewpoints, not for any one person to control what is expressed.

In case no one ever told you, discussions necessarily involve differing viewpoints. When you try to silence differing viewpoints, you are killing discussion, not fostering it.

IBdaMann wrote: Why not if I find it interesting/challenging?

Who is preventing you from addressing it?

If you're asking why someone might have a viewpoint that differs from yours, you don't quite grasp the nature of discussions.

IBdaMann wrote: The fact that you perceive overpopulation as a non-issue is your opinion, which I respect.

I never said it was my opinion. I said that it was a viewpoint that you omitted. You label that viewpoint as "off topic" and thus you ignore it.

How will this affect the discussion? You will offer "suggestions" that will be seen as "problematic" by those of the viewpoint that you are ignoring. You will become confused as to why your good intentions are meeting with such resistance. You will be frustrated by those people who you deem to be too stupid to understand your brilliance when all along it will be you who is offering stupid suggestions.

IBdaMann wrote: I have a different opinion, and in that capacity, I don't mind thinking about a solution.

...and it's a very strong opinion, yes? So strong, in fact, that you will ignore those with differing viewpoints in your own delusion of self righteousness.

Why don't you instead begin by making a convincing problem statement? Has it ever occurred to you that others might not be operating under your assumptions?

IBdaMann wrote: If it bothers you, nothing forces you to read these threads (even less to participate), but please don't tell me what I should or should not discuss.

I fully encourage you, and everyone else, to express all ideas, and you can expect me to thoroughly mock any stupid suggestions you make, as well as to question every singly assumption you make. If it bothers you, nothing forces you to read these threads (even less to participate).

So, what's your first "suggestion"?

IBdaMann wrote: I live in America and, last time I checked, free speech is still more or less a right.

I live in the US as well. Let the free speech reign.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 14-01-2016 14:31
14-01-2016 16:43
Patecroute
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
OK IBdaMann you win. I am not interested in discussing the format or "meta-topic".

I thought this thread was more about: "assuming overpopulation is real, then what could we do about it?"
But it seems you are more inclined to discuss: "overpopulation does/can not exist, true or false?".

Although I am more interested in the 1st one, I am open to either discussion or both.

Would you like to start?
14-01-2016 17:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Patecroute wrote:
OK IBdaMann you win. I am not interested in discussing the format or "meta-topic".

I thought this thread was more about: "assuming overpopulation is real, then what could we do about it?"
But it seems you are more inclined to discuss: "overpopulation does/can not exist, true or false?".

Although I am more interested in the 1st one, I am open to either discussion or both.

Would you like to start?

Is there a human sustainability maximum for planet earth? It would seem that we would need to establish that one exists and understand what that is for "overpopulation" to have any meaning. It would seem that we would need for "overpopulation" to have meaning in order to formulate solutions that properly address it and that don't inappropriately address something that "ain't broke."

I don't know what any such sustainability maximum would be for the planet. Do you know of any studies that aren't just politically-motivated wild guesses?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-01-2016 01:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
IBdaMann wrote:
Patecroute wrote:
OK IBdaMann you win. I am not interested in discussing the format or "meta-topic".

I thought this thread was more about: "assuming overpopulation is real, then what could we do about it?"
But it seems you are more inclined to discuss: "overpopulation does/can not exist, true or false?".

Although I am more interested in the 1st one, I am open to either discussion or both.

Would you like to start?

Is there a human sustainability maximum for planet earth? It would seem that we would need to establish that one exists and understand what that is for "overpopulation" to have any meaning. It would seem that we would need for "overpopulation" to have meaning in order to formulate solutions that properly address it and that don't inappropriately address something that "ain't broke."

I don't know what any such sustainability maximum would be for the planet. Do you know of any studies that aren't just politically-motivated wild guesses?


.


If there is a human sustainability of the Earth, it's unknown. You are quite right. Any such 'study' is nothing more than a wild guess (usually politically or religiously motivated, often both).

We can grown more food than ever before. We are healthier, wealthier, and better off than ever before, even for people in undeveloped countries.

Let's have more the same!


The Parrot Killer
16-01-2016 21:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote: Let's have more the same!


I like this idea. Let's have more of the improved and better.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-01-2016 23:21
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
The entire Earth's population can fit into a few big cities. Less than 0.1% of Earth's land is inhabited as of today. We have more than enough land to support a much larger population, as long as the land is used efficiently.




Join the debate COP21 - Population policy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
World Population and Annual Global temperature Since 19501026-09-2017 01:32
I will be creating a website on Climate Policy910-07-2017 19:49
COP21 - China can rule2907-02-2017 22:41
President Trump and climate change policy11303-12-2016 14:06
What policy should the IPCC make to deal with the coming little ice age?126-12-2015 00:30
Articles
Appendix A - Tracing China's Climate Policy
Analysis - Explaining China's Climate Policy
The Dependent Variable - How Ambitious Is China's Climate Policy
John McCain: Remarks on Climate Change Policy
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact