Population control called key to deal

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Ender But it is incorrect to try to tie religion and birth rates together. Every countries birth rate is tied to factors like poverty, education, death rate, etc. well before they have anything to do with religion.

I'm sure you're absolutely right, Ender, but it's equally incorrect to completely discount religion and birth rates.

Like almost anything, the existence of other factors doesn't necessarily discount the existence of one. For example: taking into account factors such as poverty, education, etc., do you think the birth rate in, say, South America is completely unaffected by it's predominantly Catholic majority and their proscriptions against any forms of birth control?

.

[Ender]

Absolutely not. No doubt it's a factor. I just think it matters a little less than you are suggesting. In these nations, the birth rate of these families are necessary to sustain even their meager livings. Birth rates exist across religious boundaries were poverty is a factor. However, the inverse is not true. Though the U.S. is much more religious than most European nations their birth rate is comparable.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Thanatos Two weeks ago the deniers took a lot of emails out of context. Read them.

Ah, I'm so glad that you mentioned that. I've got my copy of Weekly Standard open in front of me. I'm reading from an article entitled "Scientists Behaving Badly".

It says among reems of other things that the infamous graph, known as the "hockey stick" touted by Michael Mann and AlGore is total crap. It does not, for instance include the warming of the Middle Ages (which may have lead to the Black Plague) or the Little Ice Age of the latter part of the 19th Century. It is therefore bogus. They were cooking the books. The "small cabal of scientists, who in the words of MIT's Michael Schrage, engaged in "malice, mischief and Machiavellian manuverings" to further the Man Made Global Warming Myth. Today everyone knows it!

The article goes on to say, "Data that should have been made available for inspection by other scientists and outside critics were released only grudgingly, if at all."

So your Global Warming myth is just that. It's myth all mixed up with a good portion of bull shit. So called scientists Mann, Bradley and Hughes have dedicated their lives to Global Warming and will not tolerate any data that does not support their preconceived cause. Their findings are just plain wrong and they are not science. It is, rather, fraud and fraud of the worse kind because it leads to this cap and trade bunk that schemes to destroy our all ready critically ill economy. Sad thing is, Obama the Wise and Wonderful actually believes it, but he'd believe in the tooth fairy if he was told to do so by his teleprompter.

After the discovery of the thousands of emails between the GW "scholars and scientist" wherein they mention ignoring contrary data, and scientists who buys the Global Warming Myth hook line and sinker has become a laughing stock among his peers.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Ender Absolutely not. No doubt it's a factor. I just think it matters a little less than you are suggesting. In these nations, the birth rate of these families are necessary to sustain even their meager livings. Birth rates exist across religious boundaries were poverty is a factor. However, the inverse is not true. Though the U.S. is much more religious than most European nations their birth rate is comparable.

You are making a fundemental error here. You are assuming that families decided to have children in poorer socities. This is not the case. Just as in the 19th Century in the USA when families had scads of children, poorer countries do the same today and for the same reasons. We have all heard of our great grandparents having ten children. Five was probably the norm. Why did they do that? Where they planning to have that many kids? No, I doubt it, they were simply "doing what comes naturally" and ended up having enough kids to have their own basketball game. There was no such thing as birth control, and as everyone knows who has tried the rhythm method, eventually you end up with enough kids to form the brass section of a jazz band.

If one wants seriously to have no chldren that's easy to do. Just don't "do it". But before there was birth control, if one did "do it" one had babies and I doubt there was much planning involved.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: deadeye It says among reems of other things that the infamous graph, known as the "hockey stick" touted by Michael Mann and AlGore is total crap.

1) Neither of the graphs I presented is the Mann 'Hockey Stick'.

2) McIntyres revised graph not only does not disprove the 'Hockey Stick', it confirms it! McIntyres figures vary from Mann's the further back in time you go. When you get to the recent spike in temperatures, Mann's and McIntyre's graphs coincide exactly.

Quote by: deadeye It does not, for instance include the warming of the Middle Ages (which may have lead to the Black Plague) or the Little Ice Age of the latter part of the 19th Century

You're a liar.

Here's Mann's graph (except that it's actually not) and there's the 'Little Ice Age' at around 1500. Or is it the dip duplicated on BOTH charts around 1650? And kindly note that the 'Revised' version does not include that subsequent temperature spike from 1975 through the present, which does, in fact, exceed the MWP high.





And here's the reconstructed graph we've used repeatedly, showing both the MWP and LLA. AND the gradual decline in temperatures from 1000 AD to 1850, where -- Omigosh, what a coincidence -- temperatures spike dramatically upward, exactly when the industrial revolution and the dramatic spike in human population kick into gear.





So I'm still waiting for that PROOF that my two charts on sunspot activity and temperatures are false.

Quote by: deadeye This is not the case. Just as in the 19th Century in the USA when families had scads of children, poorer countries do the same today and for the same reasons

No they don't. In poor countries, infant and child mortality remains high. Poor people have lots of children for the same reason poor people always have lots of children. To insure that at least some of them reach adulthood and can take care of them in their old age.

.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Deadeye Weekly Standard

You decline my suggestion to read the emails and instead stick with your trusty old conservative flyswatter. Fine. Don't pay attention to reality and just live in your bulletproof information bubble.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Sonart . You're a liar.

And you're a prick. (See I can do that too!)

There are a great many climatologists who question Manns graph and therefore data that supports it just be equally brought to question. As Ed Cook wrote:..."I accept that everything we are doing is preliminary, and should be treated with considerable caution."

He is talking about climate warming data used by Michael Mann and his cohorts.

[Thanatos]

The difference between calling someone a liar and a prick is one is debate and the other is an insult. It is possible to be (supposedly) outnumbered, to be a prick and to be right all at the same time.

Dead, you're angry enough to be a good debater but unless you can learn to control and focus it I fear you are not long for this digital world.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: deadeye And you're a prick. (See I can do that too!)

The difference being that I proved you're a liar.

Quote by: deadeye There are a great many climatologists who question Manns graph

So what? I just showed you a half dozen graphs, including one from Mann's critics, that do not significantly contradict Mann's conclusions or AGW. And the graph from Mann's critics LIED BY OMISSION by leaving out the additional sharp rise in temperatures over the last 30 years.

It's the 'Han Solo' Fallacy.

Princess Leia: "Why, you stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf-herder!"
Han Solo: "Who's scruffy looking?"

You think by challenging one piece in a vast sea of data, you somehow prove them all wrong?

Quote by: deadeye As Ed Cook wrote:..."I accept that everything we are doing is preliminary, and should be treated with considerable caution."

Given that Cook was talking about his conclusions on the Medieval Warm Period, not global warming, and given that research into Global Warming has been going on for some 30 years, when do you anticipate the findings will get past "preliminary"? Another 30 years? Odd that it only took us 10 years to go from launching our first artificial satellite to landing men on the moon.

.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Sonart By rationalizing maintaining profitable addiction over reducing massive harm, just like Big Tobacco used to do.

So they have made an arguement, and people agreed? You think they are big bad men for arguing on behalf of themselves? That constitutes forcing a single industry upon a country to you, does it?

So when you make an arguement on this board, and someone agrees with you Sonart, that equals force?

Or is that in fact bull$hit. What we actually have is governments taking decisions on the advice of oil companies. The oil companies may well be dishing out bad advice (if they need to deal with a government in this way they no doubt are) but it is the governments that take the decisions to build an economy around one product, and this is only possible in situations where governments have the right to intervene in the economy so much. If those economies were free ones, the oil companies would just have to act like any other business.

[Nono]

Quote by: G You think they are big bad men for arguing on behalf of themselves?

You say "argue" as if they were in some sort of harmless debate club.
The are bad men for doing everything possible to hide the truth from the public.

[soothsayer]

The are bad men for doing everything possible to hide the truth from the public.

LOL. This accurately describes the US Congress, current administration and newsmedia.
Not releasing a 2000plus page document of a bill for review before asking it to be voted on in the dead of night-------claiming it is vitally urgent to be passed, yet its provisions (except taxation) won't take affect for four years in order to conceal its mounting untenable costs and to coincide favorably with the election cycle before taking effect and revealing its boondoggle only after their reelection.
Some "emergency" ! Some "urgent concern" for the dire state of American health---where their scare and guilt rhetoric has children are dying in the streets...yet this urgent legislation does nothing for four years.

The mindless sheep are either too conditioned to realize the tranparency of the scam, or too busy knocking themselve out running around trying to pay all their mounting taxes, or too self-deluded to face that their government is indeed that corrupt.

The Global Warmists are simply extending the same tax and economic racket to a global scale.

Even if the ridiculous prospect of AGW were true, the UN and its minions' means and proposals for addressing it are the worst form of bureaucratic oppression and shows every sign of intending a yet unimagined oligarchc regime of global control
Al Gore Global Governance London July 7 2009 « Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms and News About the NWO

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Nono You say "argue" as if they were in some sort of harmless debate club. The are bad men for doing everything possible to hide the truth from the public.

Completely off the issue I was discussing with Sonart.

I haven't seen any incidence of oil companies forcing countries to be pretty much one (oil) industry states, which is what he has claimed. When asked to justify his assertion, he has stated "By rationalizing maintaining profitable addiction over reducing massive harm, just like Big Tobacco used to do." This, as I was mocking, is not a forceful action.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: G. Adams So they have made an arguement, and people agreed? You think they are big bad men for arguing on behalf of themselves? That constitutes forcing a single industry upon a country to you, does it?

You can characterize it to suit your agenda any way you like, but the fact remains that Big Tobacco lied to America, and paid scientists to lie to America, in order to maintain their market share. Just as the petroleum and free-market, anti-regulation agenda has been doing in the face of global warming.

I'll go back to my 'Hurtling Asteroid' analogy. If, after several years of study, 90% of the world's astronomers agreed that a massive asteroid was hurtling on a probable collision course with earth, and would strike within the decade. And then science determined that the only possible solution to this impending End-of-Life-on-Earth-as-We-Know-it event was to marshall the world's combined industrial capacity to construct a massive asteroid defense system, at the cost of billions upon billions of essentially unrecoverable dollars. And then America's private technology and industry balked because there was nothing in it for them.

Would you really have the slightest problem with our government compelling American industry to act?

Quote by: G. Adams I haven't seen any incidence of oil companies forcing countries to be pretty much one (oil) industry states, which is what he has claimed

Beg pardon? Where did I claim that? Source please.

Quote by: G. Adams This, as I was mocking, is not a forceful action.

I never said it was. I said it was immoral. 'Rationalizing' is not the same as 'Forcing'. You're willfully inventing an argument I never made.

.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Sonart . You can characterize it to suit your agenda any way you like, but the fact remains that Big Tobacco lied to America, and paid scientists to lie to America, in order to maintain their market share. Just as the petroleum and free-market, anti-regulation agenda has been doing in the face of global warming. I'll go back to my 'Hurtling Asteroid' analogy. If, after several years of study, 90% of the world's astronomers agreed that a massive asteroid was hurtling on a probable collision course with earth, and would strike within the decade. And then science determined that the only possible solution to this impending End-of-Life-on-Earth-as-We-Know-it event was to marshall the world's combined industrial capacity to construct a massive asteroid defense system, at the cost of billions upon billions of essentially unrecoverable dollars. And then America's private technology and industry balked because there was nothing in it for them. Would you really have the slightest problem with our government compelling American industry to act? Beg pardon? Where did I claim that? Source please. I never said it was. I said it was immoral. 'Rationalizing' is not the same as 'Forcing'. You're willfully inventing an argument I never made. .

Oops, my bad. You responded to my response to Angry Citizen, and I treated it as part of the same continuing arguement.

I withdraw that point entirely.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Sonart . You can characterize it to suit your agenda any way you like, but the fact remains that Big Tobacco lied to America, and paid scientists to lie to America, in order to maintain their market share.

Aw, come on now! EVERYONE understood that smoking was bad for you. No one had to tell us. We heard the coughing, and we coughed. Cigarette have been called "coffin nails" for a very long time.

Tobacco companies sold cigarettes all kinds of ways, but there was no conventional wisdom that smoking as actually harmless. When we were young we thought it was cool to smoke. They smoked in the movies constantly. When I watch Bogie in Casablanca I want to put on a white dinner jacket and lite up. He smoked so well! Of course it killed him.

So cut it out with this "The tobacco companies lied"! Who cared? Only liberals who want to blame others for their personal afflictions.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Deadeye Aw, come on now! EVERYONE understood that smoking was bad for you. No one had to tell us. We heard the coughing, and we coughed. Cigarette have been called "coffin nails" for a very long time.

Air and water pollution were like that too... everyone could see that it was awful, so, since industry wouldn't do it on their own, public pressure demanded that polluters be regulated into reducing it. Apparently global warming is slightly different, in that it's not quite as obvious... at least to anyone incapable of reading a newspaper.

But the concept remains exactly the same.

Big Tobacco hires scientists to muddy the water about the scientifically supported risks of smoking, because the publicity of such risks would lead to public demands for government regulation of the tobacco industry, and thus, reduced profits.

Big Energy hires scientists to muddy the water about the scientifically supported risks of burning fossil fuels, because the publicity of such risks would lead to public demands of government regulation for fossil fuel related industries, and thus, reduced profits.

Quote by: Deadeye So cut it out with this "The tobacco companies lied"! Who cared?

Sorry, but like I said... exact same concept, and I won't 'cut it out' simply because you don't like hearing it. You don't believe in AGW because corporate interests don't want you to believe it and are using bad science to keep you confused about the truth, all so you won't demand changes that might cut into their profits.

Which, of course, you're more than happy to do, since you too are ideologically opposed to government regulation of the free market.

Unfortunately, nature doesn't give a flying rip about political ideology. It does what it does.

.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Sonart . Air and water pollution were like that too... everyone could see that it was awful, so, since industry wouldn't do it on their own, public pressure demanded that polluters be regulated into reducing it. Apparently global warming is slightly different, in that it's not quite as obvious... at least to anyone incapable of reading a newspaper. But the concept remains exactly the same. Big Tobacco hires scientists to muddy the water about the scientifically supported risks of smoking, because the publicity of such risks would lead to public demands for government regulation of the tobacco industry, and thus, reduced profits. Big Energy hires scientists to muddy the water about the scientifically supported risks of burning fossil fuels, because the publicity of such risks would lead to public demands of government regulation for fossil fuel related industries, and thus, reduced profits. Sorry, but like I said... exact same concept, and I won't 'cut it out' simply because you don't like hearing it. You don't believe in AGW because corporate interests don't want you to believe it and are using bad science to keep you confused about the truth, all so you won't demand changes that might cut into their profits. Which, of course, you're more than happy to do, since you too are ideologically opposed to government regulation of the free market. Unfortunately, nature doesn't give a flying rip about political ideology. It does what it does. .

Jeeze it's like talking to a brick wall. Everyone knew and has always known that smoking was bad for you. We all knew it when we lite up but since it made us feel good we did it. Just like a heroin addict.

Yeah, yeah, when the attornies assaulted the tobacco companies they hired their own set of lawyers and the fight was on. But no one at the time in the general public gave a damn. We just puffed away.

Stop this crap of blaming tobacco companies for making people smoke. They were selling a legal prodict that many people wanted to buy and use. Liberals think we are robots blindly following the lead of Big Brother. Now YOU may be doing that, but not most of us. We smoked because we wanted to smoke. If your side wins and the tobacco companies are put out of business, small farmers will still make tobacco and sell it on the black market because people want to smoke!

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Deadeye Jeeze it's like talking to a brick wall. Everyone knew and has always known that smoking was bad for you. We all knew it when we lite up but since it made us feel good we did it. Just like a heroin addict. Yeah, yeah, when the attornies assaulted the tobacco companies they hired their own set of lawyers and the fight was on. But no one at the time in the general public gave a damn. We just puffed away. Stop this crap of blaming tobacco companies for making people smoke. They were selling a legal prodict that many people wanted to buy and use. Liberals think we are robots blindly following the lead of Big Brother. Now YOU may be doing that, but not most of us. We smoked because we wanted to smoke. If your side wins and the tobacco companies are put out of business, small farmers will still make tobacco and sell it on the black market because people want to smoke!

No connection whatsoever. Man made Global Warming is a farce; a hoax and has been proven as such. Cigarette smoking is not a farce. People really want to smoke; it makes them feel good. Your GW crap is harming no one because it doesn't exist or at least man has nix to do with the temp of the globe. The only real danger w/t GW is the cap and raid program that libs want to pass. That'll do massive damage, but libs never saw a tax they didn't adore.

[soothsayer]

You don't believe in AGW because corporate interests don't want you to believe it and are using bad science to keep you confused about the truth, all so you won't demand changes that might cut into their profits.

Really. Like the 'environmentally conscious" government mandated switch in air conditioning refrigerant formulations that, coincidentally, came into effect at the same time DuPont's patent expired, which then required the use of the "new and improved" stuff that was patented by, guess who....? DUPONT !

Please. The govt/multinational corporations' "adversarial relationship" is as transparently obviously a ruse as is the "democrat vs. republican" "adversarial relationship".

Actually, the argument of this beleaguered independent small businessman is actually more insidious than he realizes. With the impending stipulations of the globalists, small businesses like his will be further squeezed out of existence with more than just environmental regulations---he will be taxed and regulated out of his ability to continue in all aspects, transferring the market share into the hands of ever-fewer international large-cap players.

This is but one example of the phenomenon that transcends all areas of commerce:
The Truth About Puron Freon 12 Refrigerant 22 Scam