Global Warming & Evolution: WHO are The Scientists?

[Cruella]

Just think how cold it would really be without globull warming


It’s a deadly cold Russian winter: minus 50 in Siberia

"Spare a thought for people in Russia. Its the coldest winter since 1938. Temperatures may hit -25 in Moscow this weekend. They have already hit -50C in Siberia. Twenty-one people froze to death in one day."

 

[Lagboltz]

^ I haven't read any articles in the Science Journal, and I'd hate to buy a subscription to a journal, not knowing if it had the answers I sought. I do have a University nearby, and I'll check there as I can.

I'm going to toss out a few observations about "climate change" that are very frightening for the future of the USA. I am becoming convinced that:

1. The mitigation projects proposed by the IPCC will be paid-for in large measure by American taxpayers!
2. The effect of those mitigation projects will be virtually nil on the climate.
3. The US economy will be virtually destroyed during the process.
4. The US military will be reduced to an empty shell, and our citizens will be stripped of their rights to self-defense via gun-control laws.
5. Future world leaders will have to "join hands" in some manner to share power; i.e., "World Governance".
6. The "real"issue underlying climate-change politics is one of over-population (effecting climate, food availability, energy, etc).
7. Overpopulation cannot be reduced to the extent needed to reverse or moderate climate-change if the population is allowed to reproduce much longer.
8. A select group of elite world leaders will (in the future) unilaterally decide who will and who will not be allowed to survive.
9. America as we know it will not exist when the decision described in #8 is made.

These listed items would explain a lot of things that are happening in our country now. If the future of the earth is threatened, a World Government could not come to power if the USA remains the same nation we've all known and loved. Proceeding in the manner I described above would eliminate the possibility of nuclear war, and would ensure that world populations could be reduced easily by the elites in power without threatening their own existence.

I am coming more into agreement with you. I don't think climate change is a root problem, it's population explosion. That is causing an increasing need for energy. A high population will eventually be the cause of many disasters. The population simply cannot exponentially increase to infinity. There will someday be an equilibrium where the death rate is roughly equal to the birth rate. How will that happen? Some combination of the following is inevitable:

1. Strong birth control
2. Abortion.
3. Epidemics
4. Local wars
5. Global wars
6. Starvation
7. Rampant euthanasia

The U.S. along with other countries are becoming a Plutocracy. If population continues unabated no country as we know it will be the same.

What is truly enlightening if the scenario I described comes to pass is.... it will be the least-productive, most lazy, and most vulnerable who will go first; like those persons who comprise much of the Democrat electorate these days.

In your last sentence I see that you and your friends obviously really really despise Democrats. You guys take every opportunity to create a divide when the people you characterize as lazy also include Republicans who are older people, people without jobs, people with handicaps that can't find even minimum wage jobs. You seem to take glee in seeing vulnerable people go first. Call it teasing or hyperbole if you wish, but it happens too often to be simply that. I think it's sad.

 

[Lagboltz]

Global Warming is a bunch of hype. I think scientist should start expermenting chemicals could cool down the sun. Its the sun getting hotter. Mars is having global warming too so theres ur answer. Its not man,,Its he sun causing global warming.

Naw, cooling the sun is too hard. How about shooting into orbit millions of beach umbrellas.

 

[Hobo1]

I am coming more into agreement with you. I don't think climate change is a root problem, it's population explosion. That is causing an increasing need for energy. A high population will eventually be the cause of many disasters. The population simply cannot exponentially increase to infinity. There will someday be an equilibrium where the death rate is roughly equal to the birth rate. How will that happen? Some combination of the following is inevitable:

1. Strong birth control
2. Abortion.
3. Epidemics
4. Local wars
5. Global wars
6. Starvation
7. Rampant euthanasia

The U.S. along with other countries are becoming a Plutocracy. If population continues unabated no country as we know it will be the same.

Read this, you may find it interesting: http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...lly_start_declining_not_exploding.single.html

About That Overpopulation Problem

Research suggests we may actually face a declining world population in the coming years.

 

[TheJPRD]

I am coming more into agreement with you. I don't think climate change is a root problem, it's population explosion. That is causing an increasing need for energy. A high population will eventually be the cause of many disasters. The population simply cannot exponentially increase to infinity. There will someday be an equilibrium where the death rate is roughly equal to the birth rate. How will that happen? Some combination of the following is inevitable:

1. Strong birth control
2. Abortion.
3. Epidemics
4. Local wars
5. Global wars
6. Starvation
7. Rampant euthanasia

The U.S. along with other countries are becoming a Plutocracy. If population continues unabated no country as we know it will be the same.

I think we are reaching some common ground.

In your last sentence I see that you and your friends obviously really really despise Democrats. You guys take every opportunity to create a divide when the people you characterize as lazy also include Republicans who are older people, people without jobs, people with handicaps that can't find even minimum wage jobs. You seem to take glee in seeing vulnerable people go first. Call it teasing or hyperbole if you wish, but it happens too often to be simply that. I think it's sad.

Lag: You are really misunderstanding me. I didn't make that last statement because I hate Democrats. My sister whom I dearly love is a Democrat.

I hate the fact that it's Democrats who are doing the most to enable the rise of the governmental tyranny that will eventually lead to "rampant euthaniasia" and the purposeful killing of unarmed citizens deemed "unworthy of life". It's we Conservatives who oppose such tyranny now! We can see the end-results of expanding government power. I am NOT gleeful that vulnerable losers in our society will die. I am consistently opposed to allowing such unbridled government power to ever install itself in the USA. IF I wanted Democrats and the vulnerable to die, I'd just keep my mouth shut now. I know that my well-educated, hard-working, principled, and self-reliant descendants will survive such tyrannical euthanasia. It would be self-destructive for any government to euthanize the successful, hard-working, and law-abiding citizens. Those euthanized will be the societal losers, most of whom now vote Democrat. They are the ones who are now enabling their own eventual destruction!... ALL while screaming that we Conservatives are Judeo-Christian facists who want to keep our right to arms just so the US will have a high gun-death rate!

I hate the Democrat leaders who demogogue Conseratives, lie about their long-term intentions toward their own electorate, and the mainstream media that enables their despicable lies and tyranny to go unchallenged!

 

[Lagboltz]

Read this, you may find it interesting: http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...lly_start_declining_not_exploding.single.html

About That Overpopulation Problem

Research suggests we may actually face a declining world population in the coming years.

If the statistical data in that article are correct then it is good news. A couple of sentences bothered me.

"Extend the trend line, and within a few dozen generations you’re talking about a global population small enough to fit in a nursing home" and "And in the long term—on the order of centuries—we could be looking at the literal extinction of humanity."​

I would consider it just a joke, except that he spent a whole paragraph covering that. He should know that you can't interpolate a falling population trend line to zero without very strong reasons.

Another interesting thing is that the data show that the smallest population growth is in the educated people that maintain careers. That makes sense, and it foretells a gradual change in the population mix.

High tech is aiming for increased robotics to cut manufacturing costs. In semiconductor robotics, the goal is for "lights out" manufacturing - machines running at night with little supervision. When robotics reaches the stage of replacing currently very difficult manual labor how will the increasing population of uneducated people find jobs? Lots of cheap products and few with money to buy them. It will be an interesting economy.

 

[dogtowner]

If the statistical data in that article are correct then it is good news. A couple of sentences bothered me.

"Extend the trend line, and within a few dozen generations you’re talking about a global population small enough to fit in a nursing home" and "And in the long term—on the order of centuries—we could be looking at the literal extinction of humanity."​

I would consider it just a joke, except that he spent a whole paragraph covering that. He should know that you can't interpolate a falling population trend line to zero without very strong reasons.

Another interesting thing is that the data show that the smallest population growth is in the educated people that maintain careers. That makes sense, and it foretells a gradual change in the population mix.

High tech is aiming for increased robotics to cut manufacturing costs. In semiconductor robotics, the goal is for "lights out" manufacturing - machines running at night with little supervision. When robotics reaches the stage of replacing currently very difficult manual labor how will the increasing population of uneducated people find jobs? Lots of cheap products and few with money to buy them. It will be an interesting economy.

It already is. We currently just give money to the parasite class and ignore and bemoan the failure of education's real causes. Which further prods the growth of the uneducated class.

The lever on the toilet has been engaged, will we hold on long enough to avoid swirling down the sewer ?

Time will tell.

 

[steveox]

Naw, cooling the sun is too hard. How about shooting into orbit millions of beach umbrellas.

Anything is possible. First they said the world was flat. Columbus proved its round, Then they said freedom can never be achived,,Freedom was achived. Then they said man would never fly,,Man Flew,,,Then they said Man could never go to the moon. So Anything is possible.

 

[dogtowner]

Anything is possible. First they said the world was flat. Columbus proved its round, Then they said freedom can never be achived,,Freedom was achived. Then they said man would never fly,,Man Flew,,,Then they said Man could never go to the moon. So Anything is possible.

whem you're right you're right

 

[TheJPRD]

Anything is possible. First they said the world was flat. Columbus proved its round, Then they said freedom can never be achived,,Freedom was achived. Then they said man would never fly,,Man Flew,,,Then they said Man could never go to the moon. So Anything is possible.

What Odds will you give me on a bet that Obama will NOT make a responsible, grown-up, Constitutional decision on the 2nd Amendment issue now under Biden's review? If you think it's Possible that he will, you can give me real low odds. I'll still bet it's impossible!

 

[TheJPRD]

If the statistical data in that article are correct then it is good news. A couple of sentences bothered me.

"Extend the trend line, and within a few dozen generations you’re talking about a global population small enough to fit in a nursing home" and "And in the long term—on the order of centuries—we could be looking at the literal extinction of humanity."



I would consider it just a joke, except that he spent a whole paragraph covering that. He should know that you can't interpolate a falling population trend line to zero without very strong reasons.

Beautifully nailed, Lagboltz! I’ve analyzed the general data presented in the article, and had intended to 2 present both analyses here. The first analysis is based on Actual Year In Which Each Billion-Increase Milestone Was Reached vs. Rate of Population Growth To Reach That Milestone, and the second based on Actual Year In Which Each Billion-Increase Milestone Was Reached vs. Actual Population In That Milestone Year.

Believe it or not, the r2 Coefficient of Determination on the first analysis isn’t terrible at 75.4%. However, in using the regression variable and constant from that analysis, the projection of Number of Years to Reach the 8-Billion Population Milestone was -38.7. You were correct in saying that the entire world population could fit into a nursing home shortly thereafter.... a Very Small nursing home.

In the second analysis, the results were much more believable, recognizing that few if any regression-analysis formulae yield perfection. The r2 was very good at 95.5%. The regression formula projected 2012 population at 6.6 Billion versus the Actual of 7 Billion. The projected year in which we’d reach 8 Billion is 2035, or approximately 22.7 years after the 7-Billion Milestone was reached in 2012. The regression projected a doubling of World Population to 14 Billion in the year 2135. I think it’s logical to assume, however, that World Population will slow significantly, and all else being equal, the World Population will be well above 8 Billion in 2135, but not as great as 14 Billion. Still, it’s not a reassuring picture.



There are three variables that come to mind immediately that will effect projections of analytical data. The 1st is (D) the probably-lower birth-rate per-mother, implying a lower rate of new births than in past data. The 2nd is (E1) the hopefully-improved medical technologies and drugs, implying a reduced rate of deaths than in past data. The third is (E2) A potentially reduced rate of War-related deaths, implying a lower death rate than in the past data.

The data used for this analysis includes every War-related death since 1927*, including the Millions killed in WW2, the Millions killed in Stalin and Mao’s purges after WW2, and those millions killed in various conflicts, wars, and ethnic cleansings since WW2.



*The data in the article Hobo posted would have allowed analysis to begin in 1804. Because of the significant advancements in medicine, drugs, war technologies, etc. between 1804-1927, I began the analysis in 1927; i.e., the second oldest year in which a Billion-Population Milestone was achieved.

 

[Lagboltz]

Beautifully nailed, Lagboltz! I’ve analyzed the general data presented in the article, and had intended to 2 present both analyses here. The first analysis is based on Actual Year In Which Each Billion-Increase Milestone Was Reached vs. Rate of Population Growth To Reach That Milestone, and the second based on Actual Year In Which Each Billion-Increase Milestone Was Reached vs. Actual Population In That Milestone Year.

Believe it or not, the r2 Coefficient of Determination on the first analysis isn’t terrible at 75.4%. However, in using the regression variable and constant from that analysis, the projection of Number of Years to Reach the 8-Billion Population Milestone was -38.7. You were correct in saying that the entire world population could fit into a nursing home shortly thereafter.... a Very Small nursing home.

In the second analysis, the results were much more believable, recognizing that few if any regression-analysis formulae yield perfection. The r2 was very good at 95.5%. The regression formula projected 2012 population at 6.6 Billion versus the Actual of 7 Billion. The projected year in which we’d reach 8 Billion is 2035, or approximately 22.7 years after the 7-Billion Milestone was reached in 2012. The regression projected a doubling of World Population to 14 Billion in the year 2135. I think it’s logical to assume, however, that World Population will slow significantly, and all else being equal, the World Population will be well above 8 Billion in 2135, but not as great as 14 Billion. Still, it’s not a reassuring picture.

There are three variables that come to mind immediately that will effect projections of analytical data. The 1st is (D) the probably-lower birth-rate per-mother, implying a lower rate of new births than in past data. The 2nd is (E1) the hopefully-improved medical technologies and drugs, implying a reduced rate of deaths than in past data. The third is (E2) A potentially reduced rate of War-related deaths, implying a lower death rate than in the past data.

The data used for this analysis includes every War-related death since 1927*, including the Millions killed in WW2, the Millions killed in Stalin and Mao’s purges after WW2, and those millions killed in various conflicts, wars, and ethnic cleansings since WW2.

*The data in the article Hobo posted would have allowed analysis to begin in 1804. Because of the significant advancements in medicine, drugs, war technologies, etc. between 1804-1927, I began the analysis in 1927; i.e., the second oldest year in which a Billion-Population Milestone was achieved.

It wasn't me that was correct in saying that about the population fitting in a nursing home. It was in the article.

I heard somewhere that the population was projected to be 9 billion in 2050. That's somewhat consistent with your 8 B in 2035.

A friend who specializes in macroeconomics, said that the growth of the US economy is dependent on an increasing population growth. A stable population size would lead to a higher skewing toward the percentage of older people. This will place an even higher burden on workers supporting non-workers. It's hard to predict how that can happen without a new paradigm of economics of the US.

If the population decreases, there are even fewer children. A lot of the people alive will be angry geezers and geezerettes.

 

[TheJPRD]

I heard somewhere that the population was projected to be 9 billion in 2050. That's somewhat consistent with your 8 B in 2035.

A friend who specializes in macroeconomics, said that the growth of the US economy is dependent on an increasing population growth. A stable population size would lead to a higher skewing toward the percentage of older people. This will place an even higher burden on workers supporting non-workers. It's hard to predict how that can happen without a new paradigm of economics of the US.

Lag: I didn't mention this in my last post to you because the 9-Billion Milestone Year wasn't especially important to the discussion. However, the 5-Pt. regression I performed projected that 9-Billion Population would be reached in 2051, versus your Macro-Economic friend's estimate of 2050. I suspect he's using a somewhat similar but more complex methodology than I am, for I don't have a multi-regression software package anymore. Nevertheless, the resulting answers were very close.

I performed a few additional analyses aimed at finding the latest and greatest trends. I began with an assumption that if I narrowed the range of Milestone Years, performing 4 Pt. 3 Pt, and then 2-Pt. data, I might discover a continuing extension of the projected Milestone Years in which each Billion-Pop’ Milestone was reached. The analysis I performed earlier consisted of 5 Milestone-Year data points, those being the Year and World Population data for 1927, 1960, 1974, 1987, and 1999. The follow-up regressions I performed included only the 4 most-recent Milestone Years, then the 3 most-recent Milestone Years, and finally the 2 most-recent Milestone Years.



What I thought I’d find when I started was a consistent extension of each regression’s projection of the future Milestone Years in which the Billion-Population increases occur. I was surprised by what the outputs of each progression were. Here they are:


Regression
R2 = 95.7%100% 100% n/a
Milestone Year
Billion POP 5 Pts.4 Pts.3 Pts.2 Pts.

8 2035 2025 2025 2025

9 2051 2035 2035 2035

10 2068 2051 2051 2051

11 2085 2068 2068 2068

12 2102 2085 2085 2085

13 2118 2090 2090 2090

14 2135 2102 2102 2102



As you see, although I rounded the Years, the Billion-Pop’ Milestones for each regression occurred in the Year shown +/- months, and the 4, 3, and 2-Pt. regressions each projected the Same Milestone Years for the Billion-Pop’ Increases. Any thoughts???

 

[TheJPRD]

^ EDIT the Above: Forgot to mention that the latest Milestone Year was 2012.

 

[Gipper]

What Odds will you give me on a bet that Obama will NOT make a responsible, grown-up, Constitutional decision on the 2nd Amendment issue now under Biden's review? If you think it's Possible that he will, you can give me real low odds. I'll still bet it's impossible!

I will take that bet too.

Laggie....or Pockets.....or Open.....are any of you willing to take the bet?

Funny....remember how leftists really went after W over the Patriot Act (I agreed with them then), but now if BO & Friends want to take our guns, lefties will go along with this unconstitutional tyranny, but not the tyranny of the progressive W. Weird.....