Maths Maths Maths

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Maths Maths Maths

Maths Maths Maths19-10-2021 00:48
Bryan Regan ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	Every effort to help our climate is excellent - BUT Our human animal species grows by 200 000 per day; YES two hundred thousand people per day. Each one of us will have a carbon footprint averaging 500 tonnes over one lifetime. Each couple on earth currently produces 2.05 children - That is to say each 200 people reproduce to make 205 (or 2.5% growth) - hence why we're approaching 8 billion people on earth. Basic maths suggests to me that could we reduce this figure by 5% we could swing to a 2.5% fall. My feeling is, were we to achieve such a reduction, it might prove as effective for out planets wellbeing, as all other current initiatives put together??? So ABSOLUTELY RESPECTING ALL HUMAN RIGHTS how could we persuade couples to consider having fewer children? I could imagine a simple one off Maths lesson for every young teenager on earth, explaining a few facts such as above. SUGGESTING that if they might wish is to have three or more children, if they were to consider having one less child. they (as individuals) could play a major part of saving our planet. If just 5% decided to have a slightly smaller family, the maths suggests we might be 6 Billion by 2050. To me the value of rolling out one simple Factual Maths lesson to teenagers appears potentially very high in our climate mission. It may seem idealistic and too simple. All Criticism highly welcome. Thank you for your consideration - Bryan
19-10-2021 02:02
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Forgive me, I'm a bit late to this "climate" party. Could you please elaborate a bit? In your own words, specifically, what is wrong with our planet and what is causing it exactly?
19-10-2021 02:04
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Bryan Regan wrote: Every effort to help our climate is excellent - BUT Our human animal species grows by 200 000 per day; YES two hundred thousand people per day. Each one of us will have a carbon footprint averaging 500 tonnes over one lifetime. Each couple on earth currently produces 2.05 children - That is to say each 200 people reproduce to make 205 (or 2.5% growth) - hence why we're approaching 8 billion people on earth. Basic maths suggests to me that could we reduce this figure by 5% we could swing to a 2.5% fall. My feeling is, were we to achieve such a reduction, it might prove as effective for out planets wellbeing, as all other current initiatives put together??? So ABSOLUTELY RESPECTING ALL HUMAN RIGHTS how could we persuade couples to consider having fewer children? I could imagine a simple one off Maths lesson for every young teenager on earth, explaining a few facts such as above. SUGGESTING that if they might wish is to have three or more children, if they were to consider having one less child. they (as individuals) could play a major part of saving our planet. If just 5% decided to have a slightly smaller family, the maths suggests we might be 6 Billion by 2050. To me the value of rolling out one simple Factual Maths lesson to teenagers appears potentially very high in our climate mission. It may seem idealistic and too simple. All Criticism highly welcome. Thank you for your consideration - Bryan With all the gun violence among kids, covid vaccine mandates, suicide, alternative lifestyle... 2 kids per couple isn't going to cut it. Need to have a few spares, because one or more aren't going to reproduce. What about family businesses? Kids are just something you slap the shit out of, they are basically free labor, until 18, or they run off. If you're luck, one out five might turn out well enough to take over the business. You don't get to pick gender of your child, regardless of what Joe Biden says. Takes a man to carry on the family name, and values. Sometimes it takes several tries, just to get one perspective candidate. Rather than aborting the future residents of the planet, we could just let nature take it's course. Covid and the mandatory vaccines seem to be doing a fine job of thinning the population. Progressive couples can't biologically reproduce, nobody is judging you... We could make capital punishment an actual 'thing' again, scheduling it for a few weeks after conviction, rather than decades. We could legalize euthanasia. Not everybody wants to be a drag on society. Why waste resources on trying to convince them otherwise. Let them just get it over with. Put Andrew Cuomo in charge of nursing homes, and assisted living facilities. He did such an outstanding job of it in New York, as Governor. Cleared out over 47,000 beds, in under a month. Babies get aborted, simple because the would be an inconvenience, a burden. Why not euthanize elderly people, when the become a burden, an inconvenience? Whole lot of people on Social Security Disability, who actually could perform meaningful work, that provides a suitable income, but choose to be a burden on society. Not to mention we all have the Constitutional Right to defend life and property. It's about time we got back to exercising our rights, with lead. You shoot somebody on your property, there should be any hassles, unless the deceased can prove otherwise. If it's your word, to theirs, the homeowner wins every time, as it should be. Children are the future, as depressing as that thought may be. We don't want a population, most made up of Joe Biden's, who drool, sniff hair, and read a teleprompter, poorly.
19-10-2021 02:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Bryan Regan wrote:Every effort to help our climate is excellent - BUT ... Finally we get a poster who unambiguously defines his terms! It's too bad that there had to be a "BUT...". Bryan Regan wrote: Our human animal species grows by 200 000 per day; YES two hundred thousand people per day. Each one of us will have a carbon footprint averaging 500 tonnes over one lifetime. Each couple on earth currently produces 2.05 children - That is to say each 200 people reproduce to make 205 (or 2.5% growth) - hence why we're approaching 8 billion people on earth. I'm so glad that you don't just pull numbers out of your arse and instead use valid, raw datasets that are limited to what we know. I appreciate the rigorously computed margins of error. Thank you. Bryan Regan wrote: Basic maths suggests to me that could we reduce this figure by 5% we could swing to a 2.5% fall. Excellent use of the Marxist "we". Good job. Your proposal has gained immediate credibility. My maths are tad different. Tell me what you think. If every human limited himself/herself to two children, the global population would decrease over time. Bryan Regan wrote: My feeling is, were we to achieve such a reduction, it might prove as effective for out planets wellbeing, as all other current initiatives put together??? I'm glad you took the high road and trusted your feelings, kind of like a Climate Jedi, instead of relying on plausible logic and exhaustive research. You are totally correct. What we know is that the planet's geological processes are intricately linked to, and controlled by, human activity and as we rush to the brink of overloading our planet, we risk imposing a total Climate catastrophe that will have aftershocks throughout the Van Allen belt and will result in a Great Flood of stratospherically-produced formaldehyde, but I'll let James__ explain that to you if you never learned those basics when you were a child. Bryan Regan wrote:So ABSOLUTELY RESPECTING ALL HUMAN RIGHTS how could we persuade couples to consider having fewer children? Islam showed the world how effectively people could be persuaded by the edge of the sword. Why don't we try that? Another effective technique that was perfected by US Democrats is to declare that the unborn are not human and therefore have no rights that need to respected. In fact, the US State of Virginia went even further and sought to declare that healthily born babies have no rights to be respected if the mother determines such. Virginia has no overpopulation issues and it's not a coincidence. Bryan Regan wrote:I could imagine a simple one off Maths lesson for every young teenager on earth, explaining a few facts such as above. SUGGESTING that if they might wish is to have three or more children, if they were to consider having one less child. they (as individuals) could play a major part of saving our planet. Because instilling discipline is learning maths. They are one and the same. In fact, the NSA credits its cryptography successes to hiring women who simply avoided teenage pregnancies, determining that they are clearly of high proficiency in maths, and that's no lie. Bryan Regan wrote: If just 5% decided to have a slightly smaller family, the maths suggests we might be 6 Billion by 2050. That's maths for you! Yessiree! You do the calculation and you get a suggestion as to what the answer might be. Bryan Regan wrote: To me the value of rolling out one simple Factual Maths lesson to teenagers appears potentially very high in our climate mission. I like the way you unambiguously define "our climate" and painstakingly specify who "we" are to whom this particular climate belongs ... and then you tie it directly into applicability to the rock-solid maths suggestion you very well might have. Excellent! I think our work here is done. Are there any questions left unanswered after this? I think not. Great job. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
19-10-2021 04:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Bryan Regan wrote: Every effort to help our climate is excellent How to 'improve' a climate?? Climate has no value. It also has no scale on what is 'unimproved' vs 'improved'. Bryan Regan wrote: - BUT Our human animal species grows by 200 000 per day; YES two hundred thousand people per day. Each one of us will have a carbon footprint averaging 500 tonnes over one lifetime. Personally, I wash my feet after I work with carbon. I don't like tracking it into the house. Bryan Regan wrote: Each couple on earth currently produces 2.05 children - That is to say each 200 people reproduce to make 205 (or 2.5% growth) - hence why we're approaching 8 billion people on earth. Basic maths suggests to me that could we reduce this figure by 5% we could swing to a 2.5% fall. My feeling is, were we to achieve such a reduction, it might prove as effective for out planets wellbeing, as all other current initiatives put together??? So you feel that human beings are only liabilities and not assets at all, eh? You DO realize that all those engineers have improved systems by quite a lot to reduce soot, sulfur dioxides from coal plants, smog, better handling of waste water, better handling of fresh water, amazing devices to grow food not by the acre, but by the hundreds of square miles. Bryan Regan wrote: So ABSOLUTELY RESPECTING ALL HUMAN RIGHTS how could we persuade couples to consider having fewer children? [quote]Bryan Regan wrote: I could imagine a simple one off Maths lesson for every young teenager on earth, explaining a few facts such as above. SUGGESTING that if they might wish is to have three or more children, if they were to consider having one less child. they (as individuals) could play a major part of saving our planet. How does having fewer children save our planet? What does it need 'saving' from? Define The Problem. Bryan Regan wrote: If just 5% decided to have a slightly smaller family, the maths suggests we might be 6 Billion by 2050. To me the value of rolling out one simple Factual Maths lesson to teenagers appears potentially very high in our climate mission. What is 'climate mission'. Why is it a 'mission'? Climate is not a plan nor an objective. Bryan Regan wrote: It may seem idealistic and too simple. All Criticism highly welcome. Thank you for your consideration - Bryan You're gonna have to define some terms first. Until you do, you are just making void arguments. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

19-10-2021 05:34
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Bryan Regan wrote: Every effort to help our climate is excellent - BUT Our human animal species grows by 200 000 per day; YES two hundred thousand people per day. Each one of us will have a carbon footprint averaging 500 tonnes over one lifetime. Each couple on earth currently produces 2.05 children - That is to say each 200 people reproduce to make 205 (or 2.5% growth) - hence why we're approaching 8 billion people on earth. Basic maths suggests to me that could we reduce this figure by 5% we could swing to a 2.5% fall. My feeling is, were we to achieve such a reduction, it might prove as effective for out planets wellbeing, as all other current initiatives put together??? So ABSOLUTELY RESPECTING ALL HUMAN RIGHTS how could we persuade couples to consider having fewer children? I could imagine a simple one off Maths lesson for every young teenager on earth, explaining a few facts such as above. SUGGESTING that if they might wish is to have three or more children, if they were to consider having one less child. they (as individuals) could play a major part of saving our planet. If just 5% decided to have a slightly smaller family, the maths suggests we might be 6 Billion by 2050. To me the value of rolling out one simple Factual Maths lesson to teenagers appears potentially very high in our climate mission. It may seem idealistic and too simple. All Criticism highly welcome. Thank you for your consideration - Bryan And yet the IPCC is not saying that if CO2 output decreases we'll start losing the ozone layer. It's still recovering and could take until 2050 if CO2 levels continue to rise. It was in their 2013 report. And the 2050 date would be recent observations made by scientists. At the same time scientists have been saying for years that if the world population keeps growing its resources will become limited. And we're seeing that today. At least the US has become too dependent on Chinese imports because lax environmental controls and cheap labor benefit American consumers. And yet both China and India are in short supply of coal for energy. Then there is England telling Qatar that if LNG prices continue to rise they'll have to shutter their steel mills. As for needing to increase the population, it's actually about growing the economy or keeping it from shrinking because the population decreases because people are having fewer babies. Things might need to run their natural course. It's just that with so many governments, etc. involved, it's difficult to change such a situation because a lot of people will be out to exploit it.
19-10-2021 08:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote:And yet the IPCC is not saying that if CO2 output decreases we'll start losing the ozone layer. What happens when we start to lose the IPCC layer, will the ozone layer return and cause the CO2 layer to decrease the Climate layer along with the ocean acidification layer? Can we withstand only losing IPCC substrata or will that irreparably damage the Van Allen belt layer? James___ wrote: It's still recovering and could take until 2050 if CO2 levels continue to rise. I read that its recovery was only [1/4]^-1 but I've overheard others quote figures as high as "4". What have you heard? James___ wrote: It was in their 2013 report. And the 2050 date would be recent observations made by scientists. My money is on the recent 2050 observations. James___ wrote: At the same time scientists have been saying for years that if the world population keeps growing its resources will become limited. It's a good thing we still have unlimited resources. When the day comes that they become limited, we'll have politics and fighting over resources. I hope that never happens in my lifetime. James___ wrote:And we're seeing that today. ... in our recent observations of 2050. James___ wrote: At least the US has become too dependent on Chinese imports because lax environmental controls and cheap labor benefit American consumers. At least! We could have become dependent upon Norway's counterfeit Bassler wheels and then we'd be screwed every time the Norwegian Jet Stream stops keeping them spinning. James___ wrote:And yet both China and India are in short supply of coal for energy. If they aren't smart enough to leverage the Norwegian Jet Stream then fucc'm. James___ wrote:Then there is England telling Qatar that if LNG prices continue to rise they'll have to shutter their steel mills. If only the Qataris could understand English they'd know what the Brits were saying. James___ wrote: As for needing to increase the population, it's actually about growing the economy or keeping it from shrinking because the population decreases because people are having fewer babies. And this takes us back to 1844 and allows for England to build steel mills that they'll eventually have to close when Qatar totally screws everything up because they are more worried about making babies than about learning English. James___ wrote:Things might need to run their natural course. Fortunately, things have the option of running a synthetic course with very few preservatives. James___ wrote: It's just that with so many governments, etc. involved, it's difficult to change such a situation because a lot of people will be out to exploit it. I call it the Qatar syndrome. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
19-10-2021 17:58
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Bryan Regan wrote: Every effort to help our climate is excellent The words "help our climate" imply, at the very least, a couple of things: [1] You're implying that the Earth only has one climate (what you referred to as "our climate"). What climate is this, exactly? Is Earth cold and arid? Hot and damp? Tropical? Marine? Desert? Please elaborate. [2] You're implying that there is some sort of "problem" with "our climate" (see #1) that we are capable of "fixing". What is this supposed problem? What is the mechanism by which this supposed problem is occurring? Bryan Regan wrote: - BUT Oh no... Here comes the fear mongering... Bryan Regan wrote: Our human animal species grows by 200 000 per day; YES two hundred thousand people per day. How do you know this? Bryan Regan wrote: Each one of us will have a carbon footprint averaging 500 tonnes over one lifetime. Each couple on earth currently produces 2.05 children - That is to say each 200 people reproduce to make 205 (or 2.5% growth) - hence why we're approaching 8 billion people on earth. Basic maths suggests to me that could we reduce this figure by 5% we could swing to a 2.5% fall. My feeling is, were we to achieve such a reduction, it might prove as effective for out planets wellbeing, as all other current initiatives put together??? A bunch of made up numbers... meh. Bryan Regan wrote: So ABSOLUTELY RESPECTING ALL HUMAN RIGHTS how could we persuade couples to consider having fewer children? We could change the definition/scope of all human rights and then start working from there. For instance, we could deny the truth that a separate living human inside the womb is in fact a separate living human with the same right to life as you and I enjoy. That way, we could deem a subset of humans as "not actually human", thus "justifying" the slaughtering of millions of living humans each and every year before they are even born, due to "non-humans" not enjoying the same basic "human rights" that "humans" enjoy. Oh wait, we're already doing that... Not enough, you say?! Well, how about we segregate society between the "compliant" and the "non-compliant", and "justify" doing so as being "for our own safety"? We could start this off by merely suggesting that people wear face masks just to test out how many people would immediately comply without the need for any force. Then, we could mandate that people wear face masks to test out how many people would join in with the prior compliance without the need for too much force. Now that we know what people are willing to do outside of their bodies, we could then see what people are willing to do INSIDE of their bodies. We could go through the same process, but now with COVID jabs, eventually to the point of mandating a large subset of all people receive COVID jabs in order to keep their jobs to provide for their families. Then we could keep trucking along with this concept by creating a COVID Pass (vaccine passport) system that only allows the compliant to participate in developed society. This, along with creating a COVID booster shot "merry-go-round" system in which anyone who jumps off of the ride at any time is deemed "non-compliant", would allow us to weed out the remaining people who are definitely not going to be fully compliant with the New World Order. Those people can then all be deemed dangerous to the NWO and we can then "remove the threat" "for our own safety". Oh wait, we're already doing all of that stuff as well... Seems like we're good on this "depopulation" front. Bryan Regan wrote: I could imagine a simple one off Maths lesson for every young teenager on earth, explaining a few facts such as above. SUGGESTING that if they might wish is to have three or more children, if they were to consider having one less child. they (as individuals) could play a major part of saving our planet. If just 5% decided to have a slightly smaller family, the maths suggests we might be 6 Billion by 2050. To me the value of rolling out one simple Factual Maths lesson to teenagers appears potentially very high in our climate mission. It may seem idealistic and too simple. All Criticism highly welcome. Thank you for your consideration - Bryan I am SUGGESTING that you take your Satanic "New World Order" "depopulation" agenda and shove it up your ass. Bill Gates might be more receptive to your agenda though... Edited on 19-10-2021 18:03
19-10-2021 18:42
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	gfm7175 wrote: Bryan Regan wrote: Every effort to help our climate is excellent The words "help our climate" imply, at the very least, a couple of things: [1] You're implying that the Earth only has one climate (what you referred to as "our climate"). What climate is this, exactly? Is Earth cold and arid? Hot and damp? Tropical? Marine? Desert? Please elaborate. [2] You're implying that there is some sort of "problem" with "our climate" (see #1) that we are capable of "fixing". What is this supposed problem? What is the mechanism by which this supposed problem is occurring? Bryan Regan wrote: - BUT Oh no... Here comes the fear mongering... Bryan Regan wrote: Our human animal species grows by 200 000 per day; YES two hundred thousand people per day. How do you know this? Bryan Regan wrote: Each one of us will have a carbon footprint averaging 500 tonnes over one lifetime. Each couple on earth currently produces 2.05 children - That is to say each 200 people reproduce to make 205 (or 2.5% growth) - hence why we're approaching 8 billion people on earth. Basic maths suggests to me that could we reduce this figure by 5% we could swing to a 2.5% fall. My feeling is, were we to achieve such a reduction, it might prove as effective for out planets wellbeing, as all other current initiatives put together??? A bunch of made up numbers... meh. Bryan Regan wrote: So ABSOLUTELY RESPECTING ALL HUMAN RIGHTS how could we persuade couples to consider having fewer children? We could change the definition/scope of all human rights and then start working from there. For instance, we could deny the truth that a separate living human inside the womb is in fact a separate living human with the same right to life as you and I enjoy. That way, we could deem a subset of humans as "not actually human", thus "justifying" the slaughtering of millions of living humans each and every year before they are even born, due to "non-humans" not enjoying the same basic "human rights" that "humans" enjoy. Oh wait, we're already doing that... Not enough, you say?! Well, how about we segregate society between the "compliant" and the "non-compliant", and "justify" doing so as being "for our own safety"? We could start this off by merely suggesting that people wear face masks just to test out how many people would immediately comply without the need for any force. Then, we could mandate that people wear face masks to test out how many people would join in with the prior compliance without the need for too much force. Now that we know what people are willing to do outside of their bodies, we could then see what people are willing to do INSIDE of their bodies. We could go through the same process, but now with COVID jabs, eventually to the point of mandating a large subset of all people receive COVID jabs in order to keep their jobs to provide for their families. Then we could keep trucking along with this concept by creating a COVID Pass (vaccine passport) system that only allows the compliant to participate in developed society. This, along with creating a COVID booster shot "merry-go-round" system in which anyone who jumps off of the ride at any time is deemed "non-compliant", would allow us to weed out the remaining people who are definitely not going to be fully compliant with the New World Order. Those people can then all be deemed dangerous to the NWO and we can then "remove the threat" "for our own safety". Oh wait, we're already doing all of that stuff as well... Seems like we're good on this "depopulation" front. Bryan Regan wrote: I could imagine a simple one off Maths lesson for every young teenager on earth, explaining a few facts such as above. SUGGESTING that if they might wish is to have three or more children, if they were to consider having one less child. they (as individuals) could play a major part of saving our planet. If just 5% decided to have a slightly smaller family, the maths suggests we might be 6 Billion by 2050. To me the value of rolling out one simple Factual Maths lesson to teenagers appears potentially very high in our climate mission. It may seem idealistic and too simple. All Criticism highly welcome. Thank you for your consideration - Bryan I am SUGGESTING that you take your Satanic "New World Order" "depopulation" agenda and shove it up your ass. Bill Gates might be more receptive to your agenda though... The vaccine mandates, for what is essentially a common cold, for everyone, except the extreme elderly, and those with chronic health issues. Basically, only those hovering near their expiration date, are at risk of severe/fatal outcome. The same people in charge of running countries. It's got to be the scariest thing this planet has ever been subjected to. The vaccines will require at least one booster every year, most likely two. How long before a few bad batches make it past Quality Controls, and into people's arms. Japan recently rejected a shipment, for particulates, clearly visible in the vials. Not real an 'if', more of a 'when' millions of contaminated/deadly vaccine gets injected in to people's arms. The mRNA vaccine has been fully approved. The approval applies to the technology, the delivery system, and other ingredients (preservatives, stabilizers, antifreeze...), but the coding of the mRNA component can be 'adjusted' at will. No need for further studies, or approvals. The mRNA can carry any instructions a cell can carry out, from pretty much any other cell, virus, or bacteria on the planet. Not a real big deal at the moment, since mRNA doesn't modify DNA, and replicate, yet... Early on, we didn't have replicating computer viruses either. But, bored college kids, just playing around with powerful tools at the University, eventually wrote the code... We have a powerful biological tool, for college kids to play with. An approved delivery system. And governmental mandates, to inject the 'experiment' into millions of test subjects every year.
19-10-2021 18:46
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:And yet the IPCC is not saying that if CO2 output decreases we'll start losing the ozone layer. What happens when we start to lose the IPCC layer, will the ozone layer return and cause the CO2 layer to decrease the Climate layer along with the ocean acidification layer? Can we withstand only losing IPCC substrata or will that irreparably damage the Van Allen belt layer? James___ wrote: It's still recovering and could take until 2050 if CO2 levels continue to rise. I read that its recovery was only [1/4]^-1 but I've overheard others quote figures as high as "4". What have you heard? James___ wrote: It was in their 2013 report. And the 2050 date would be recent observations made by scientists. My money is on the recent 2050 observations. James___ wrote: At the same time scientists have been saying for years that if the world population keeps growing its resources will become limited. It's a good thing we still have unlimited resources. When the day comes that they become limited, we'll have politics and fighting over resources. I hope that never happens in my lifetime. James___ wrote:And we're seeing that today. ... in our recent observations of 2050. James___ wrote: At least the US has become too dependent on Chinese imports because lax environmental controls and cheap labor benefit American consumers. At least! We could have become dependent upon Norway's counterfeit Bassler wheels and then we'd be screwed every time the Norwegian Jet Stream stops keeping them spinning. James___ wrote:And yet both China and India are in short supply of coal for energy. If they aren't smart enough to leverage the Norwegian Jet Stream then fucc'm. James___ wrote:Then there is England telling Qatar that if LNG prices continue to rise they'll have to shutter their steel mills. If only the Qataris could understand English they'd know what the Brits were saying. James___ wrote: As for needing to increase the population, it's actually about growing the economy or keeping it from shrinking because the population decreases because people are having fewer babies. And this takes us back to 1844 and allows for England to build steel mills that they'll eventually have to close when Qatar totally screws everything up because they are more worried about making babies than about learning English. James___ wrote:Things might need to run their natural course. Fortunately, things have the option of running a synthetic course with very few preservatives. James___ wrote: It's just that with so many governments, etc. involved, it's difficult to change such a situation because a lot of people will be out to exploit it. I call it the Qatar syndrome. . And yet neither you nor Harvey understand that 3 x (-1) = 3 - 3? Addition or subtraction is supposed to prove multiplication. You know, 2 x 2 = 2 + 2 = 4. See how easy that is? Of course 2 was only multiplied 1 time but we'll ignore that, okay? This is why there is a debate about climate change. I'm just not sure why you guys want to complicate things for. I think this is where I can work with both systems and know enough to "talk the right way". That's better than being right.
19-10-2021 19:07
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:And yet the IPCC is not saying that if CO2 output decreases we'll start losing the ozone layer. What happens when we start to lose the IPCC layer, will the ozone layer return and cause the CO2 layer to decrease the Climate layer along with the ocean acidification layer? Can we withstand only losing IPCC substrata or will that irreparably damage the Van Allen belt layer? James___ wrote: It's still recovering and could take until 2050 if CO2 levels continue to rise. I read that its recovery was only [1/4]^-1 but I've overheard others quote figures as high as "4". What have you heard? James___ wrote: It was in their 2013 report. And the 2050 date would be recent observations made by scientists. My money is on the recent 2050 observations. James___ wrote: At the same time scientists have been saying for years that if the world population keeps growing its resources will become limited. It's a good thing we still have unlimited resources. When the day comes that they become limited, we'll have politics and fighting over resources. I hope that never happens in my lifetime. James___ wrote:And we're seeing that today. ... in our recent observations of 2050. James___ wrote: At least the US has become too dependent on Chinese imports because lax environmental controls and cheap labor benefit American consumers. At least! We could have become dependent upon Norway's counterfeit Bassler wheels and then we'd be screwed every time the Norwegian Jet Stream stops keeping them spinning. James___ wrote:And yet both China and India are in short supply of coal for energy. If they aren't smart enough to leverage the Norwegian Jet Stream then fucc'm. James___ wrote:Then there is England telling Qatar that if LNG prices continue to rise they'll have to shutter their steel mills. If only the Qataris could understand English they'd know what the Brits were saying. James___ wrote: As for needing to increase the population, it's actually about growing the economy or keeping it from shrinking because the population decreases because people are having fewer babies. And this takes us back to 1844 and allows for England to build steel mills that they'll eventually have to close when Qatar totally screws everything up because they are more worried about making babies than about learning English. James___ wrote:Things might need to run their natural course. Fortunately, things have the option of running a synthetic course with very few preservatives. James___ wrote: It's just that with so many governments, etc. involved, it's difficult to change such a situation because a lot of people will be out to exploit it. I call it the Qatar syndrome. . And yet neither you nor Harvey understand that 3 x (-1) = 3 - 3? Addition or subtraction is supposed to prove multiplication. You know, 2 x 2 = 2 + 2 = 4. See how easy that is? Of course 2 was only multiplied 1 time but we'll ignore that, okay? This is why there is a debate about climate change. I'm just not sure why you guys want to complicate things for. I think this is where I can work with both systems and know enough to "talk the right way". That's better than being right. What does Corn Whiskey math have to do with over populating the planet? Of course, democrat-math is the basis of a most every faux-crisis, that needs immediate compliance from every American, of Norwegian decent.

Join the debate Maths Maths Maths:

Threads	Replies	Last post
It's MATHS - Stewart Lee - Climate Change	19	02-12-2017 01:29