Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[up2u2]

Look, we should really be taking this climate change thing seriously. It affects global stability. Here's what the CIA has to say about it.

“The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental climatic change. The stability of most nations is based on a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under a new climatic era. Climate is now a critical factor. The politics of food will become the central issue of every government.

A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850), an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.”

The "neo-boreal era" is also known as the Little Ice Age, and the report from the CIA (written in 1974) was on the subject of dangerous global cooling. There was no doubt. The science was settled and the debate was over.

"The climate of the neo-boreal time period has arrived."

As so often, the self-proclaimed experts were nothing like as smart as they thought they were. ("Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895).

The Little Ice Age was cooling restricted to a small region of Earth, Western Europe and parts of North America. It had no significant effect on global temperatures or global climates.

There was no consensus on the Earth moving into an Ice Age in the 70's. In fact research from that short period in the 70's showed the scientific consensus was for global warming not global cooling.

Total Climate Denier mythological zombie that simply refuses to die.

Fact check your posts please Rick.

Edited October 9, 2015 by up2u2

[thaibeachlovers]

Look, we should really be taking this climate change thing seriously. It affects global stability. Here's what the CIA has to say about it.

“The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental climatic change. The stability of most nations is based on a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under a new climatic era. Climate is now a critical factor. The politics of food will become the central issue of every government.

A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600-1850), an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.”

The "neo-boreal era" is also known as the Little Ice Age, and the report from the CIA (written in 1974) was on the subject of dangerous global cooling. There was no doubt. The science was settled and the debate was over.

"The climate of the neo-boreal time period has arrived."

As so often, the self-proclaimed experts were nothing like as smart as they thought they were. ("Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -- Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895).

Hmmmmmm. seems that Gaia may have had enough of the parasite humans and decided to reduce their numbers significantly.

Well, if humans won't reduce the population voluntarily, Gaia/ nature/ whatever you want to call it will.

[thaibeachlovers]

Climate Denier Zombie Myths.

Currently China is actually the biggest mover on addressing GW / CC. A lot of the new coal fired power stations replaced old polluting coal fired power stations. As at 2014 power capacity utilisation is 54%. Although China has new power stations they are running at 50% capacity. They have spent trillions of dollars on new coal fired power stations but all are running at 50% capacity. During 2014 coal power generation fell by 2%. Major investment in Hydropower, Wind, Solar, Nuclear and Gas should see the use of Coal reduced by 40% running up to 2020. The China Government has banned the building of new coal fired power stations in 4 key manufacturing zones that account for 30% of coal generation. China for some years have been 'market testing' various forms of ETS platforms and have recently (26th Sept) announced a National ETS program starting in 2017. Some 5 regions are currently running ETS programs and the most successful economic and emissions reduction ETS program will be expanded nationwide.

So this old Zombie Myth that China is not doing anything so why should anyone else is just absolute bunkum. It is just a sad old line being repeated over and over again by the Climate Denier Lobby.

Also India comment is misleading. India has committed to reduce imports of coal and it is looking to increase it;s domestic supply of coal rather than importing it.

So as usual when you look at the facts the Climate Denier claims are fictitious and just intended to mislead. The battle to save the planet has just begun.

So please enlighten us deniers as to just how much of this evil pollutant CO2 is actually in the atmosphere as this figure is always missing whenever the Eco Loonies talk about it for some reason

Ask most of these lunatics how much and most will not have a clue. I have never fallen for this con and even I was way off the mark

Currently as at August 2015 400.57ppm CO₂ atmospheric concentration.

So a gas that makes up around 4000th of 1% is going to destroy the world and all that lives on it ? Even if it was a whole 1% it is a ridiculously low figure that is why they never mention this figure unless they really have to because it is laughable.

If the temperature rising is so deadly then please tell us just what the ideal / optimum temp is then ?

Was it the temp the world was 20 years ago ? 30 years ago ?

Why is the temp rising a few degrees so deadly ? I moved to Thailand from a relatively cold climate and have lived quite happily in a country where the temp is considerably higher yet I haven't dropped down dead as yet

We keep getting told that nearly all scientist agrre with global warming yet it simply isn't true.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

An interesting article here and not exactly taken from a rag or comic either

The other excuse we hear is that those deniers are just tin foil hat wearing nut jobs yet here we have a distinguished Nobel Laureate telling it like it really is

30 minutes well worth watching

The trouble is today is that this has nothing to do with science as most people understand it and is now a sort of Quasi religion where those that disagree with it are labelled Heretics and deniers to simply shut down debate

I also love this one from Penn and Teller series BS where they get Eco loonies to sign a petition to ban water and even the organiser of the Green / Eco festival signs it. It just highlights that people will sign most things they know nothing about if told a load of BS about it

Enjoy

Why is the temp rising a few degrees so deadly ?

Because if the permafrost thaws it will release large quantities of methane and everyone dies in the ensuing methane storms.

[up2u2]

Hmmmmmm. seems that Gaia may have had enough of the parasite humans and decided to reduce their numbers significantly.

Well, if humans won't reduce the population voluntarily, Gaia/ nature/ whatever you want to call it will.

The current GW / CC that threatens mankind is not Greek Mythology or Natural variability it is actually being caused by man polluting the atmosphere.

[thaibeachlovers]

Hmmmmmm. seems that Gaia may have had enough of the parasite humans and decided to reduce their numbers significantly.

Well, if humans won't reduce the population voluntarily, Gaia/ nature/ whatever you want to call it will.

The current GW / CC that threatens mankind is not Greek Mythology or Natural variability it is actually being caused by man polluting the atmosphere.

While you may be right, it is irrelevant. Humans will not do what is required to change it, and if the temp goes up by 6 degrees C, the methane storms will wipe out all life on the planet, and the life cycle will begin again from scratch.

[RickBradford]

There was no consensus on the Earth moving into an Ice Age in the 70's.

You seem to delight in inventing claims for me which I haven't made -- I suppose it's the dim-bulb climate equivalent of True Believers looking into an omelette and seeing the face of Jesus Christ.

Nor, for that matter, did I make any claims for the extent or duration of the Little Ice Age. So it is rather pointless for me to "check facts" which I have not claimed, supported or endorsed.

The tendency of self-styled experts to make grandiose and definitive claims which later turn out to be ludicrous, however, is a motif that runs through history, and is one which any sentient being should be aware, and wary, of.

[up2u2]

There was no consensus on the Earth moving into an Ice Age in the 70's.

You seem to delight in inventing claims for me which I haven't made -- I suppose it's the dim-bulb climate equivalent of True Believers looking into an omelette and seeing the face of Jesus Christ.

Nor, for that matter, did I make any claims for the extent or duration of the Little Ice Age. So it is rather pointless for me to "check facts" which I have not claimed, supported or endorsed.

The tendency of self-styled experts to make grandiose and definitive claims which later turn out to be ludicrous, however, is a motif that runs through history, and is one which any sentient being should be aware, and wary, of.

"..........The "neo-boreal era" is also known as the Little Ice Age, and the report from the CIA (written in 1974) was on the subject of dangerous global cooling. There was no doubt. The science was settled and the debate was over.

"The climate of the neo-boreal time period has arrived..........."

The CIA's report was simply not factually correct. If you check the actual facts you would not post this incorrect CIA report from 1974.

The CIA references The Little Ice Age which was limited to a small region and relates it to GLOBAL cooling. Also the science was NOT settled or the debate over. The scientific consensus in the early 70's was global warming NOT global cooling.

So check your facts before you post misleading CIA reports from 1974 Rick.

Actually where did you get this misleading information from?

[eliotness]

Up2u2, you have never responded to my claim and several other posters, that the population growth of mankind poses a greater threat to "life on earth as we know it". Furthermore you concentrate on CO2 emissions, completely ignoring the basket of other "pollutants" that are an immediate and deadly threat to the health of mankind and not some possible risk in the future. Your dismissal of the Wall Street Journal was to be expected and I'd guess you're a Guardian reader, assuming that is you are British. I believe somewhere between the Pope and Marsha Blackburn is the truth, but extremist views from BOTH sides are making sensible debate impossible.

[thaibeachlovers]

There was no consensus on the Earth moving into an Ice Age in the 70's.

You seem to delight in inventing claims for me which I haven't made -- I suppose it's the dim-bulb climate equivalent of True Believers looking into an omelette and seeing the face of Jesus Christ.

Nor, for that matter, did I make any claims for the extent or duration of the Little Ice Age. So it is rather pointless for me to "check facts" which I have not claimed, supported or endorsed.

The tendency of self-styled experts to make grandiose and definitive claims which later turn out to be ludicrous, however, is a motif that runs through history, and is one which any sentient being should be aware, and wary, of.

"..........The "neo-boreal era" is also known as the Little Ice Age, and the report from the CIA (written in 1974) was on the subject of dangerous global cooling. There was no doubt. The science was settled and the debate was over.

"The climate of the neo-boreal time period has arrived..........."

The CIA's report was simply not factually correct. If you check the actual facts you would not post this incorrect CIA report from 1974.

The CIA references The Little Ice Age which was limited to a small region and relates it to GLOBAL cooling. Also the science was NOT settled or the debate over. The scientific consensus in the early 70's was global warming NOT global cooling.

So check your facts before you post misleading CIA reports from 1974 Rick.

Actually where did you get this misleading information from?

Probably from the same "scientists" that support GW/ CC now.

They didn't get it right back then, so why should I believe them now? It's all just guess work, and the answer depends on the information put into the computer. Like they say, "garbage in, garbage out".

[RickBradford]

The CIA's report was simply not factually correct. If you check the actual facts you would not post this incorrect CIA report from 1974.

You really don't get it, do you? I'll try just once more.

The reason I posted the CIA report is precisely to demonstrate the dangers of blindly believing self-styled experts,whether they be analysts from the CIA or scientists who are utterly and unjustifiably certain of their conclusions. Or even the Pope. Or the IPCC for that matter.

[up2u2]

The CIA's report was simply not factually correct. If you check the actual facts you would not post this incorrect CIA report from 1974.

You really don't get it, do you? I'll try just once more.

The reason I posted the CIA report is precisely to demonstrate the dangers of blindly believing self-styled experts,whether they be analysts from the CIA or scientists who are utterly and unjustifiably certain of their conclusions. Or even the Pope. Or the IPCC for that matter.

Oh I get it all right Rick don't you worry about that for a second. The CIA report did NOT reflect the scientific evidence and scientific consensus at the time which was Global Warming NOT Global Cooling nor did the mention of the Little Ice Age influence Global Cooling so the report was fundamentally flawed and on that basis and fact check it should be rejected.

The IPCC the Pope conclusions are justifiable as they are based on scientific evidence and scientific consensus so should be accepted in their entirety. The CIA report of 1974 was not justified simply as it was based on issues that had no scientific evidence or scientific consensus at the time.

Conflating two diametrically opposed circumstances and a simple fact check would reveal why they cannot be compared but nice try.

[RickBradford]

The CIA report of 1974 was not justified simply as it was based on issues that had no scientific evidence or scientific consensus at the time.

Having read the report in its entirety, I can safely that that statement is, to use your own phrase, "absolute bunkum".

There was plenty of scientific evidence adduced, dozens of scientific publications cited, mechanisms and climate models invoked, and a National Climate Plan (for the US) was mooted, with input from the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This happened in concert with the Conclusion of the report, which read, in part: "Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems around the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations round the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources."

They had evidence, they had plausible mechanisms, and they came to the wrong conclusions.

[up2u2]

The CIA report of 1974 was not justified simply as it was based on issues that had no scientific evidence or scientific consensus at the time.

Having read the report in its entirety, I can safely that that statement is, to use your own phrase, "absolute bunkum".

There was plenty of scientific evidence adduced, dozens of scientific publications cited, mechanisms and climate models invoked, and a National Climate Plan (for the US) was mooted, with input from the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This happened in concert with the Conclusion of the report, which read, in part: "Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems around the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations round the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources."

They had evidence, they had plausible mechanisms, and they came to the wrong conclusions.

Recent research has shown conclusively that the the majority of the scientific consensus and scientific evidence for a short period during the early 70's was focused on Global Warming NOT Global Cooling. Were there reports of possible Global Cooling? Yes. Were those views dominant? No. If you did some basic research on the topic of Global Cooling early 70's you would know this.

Overall during the early 70's the scientific community came to the correct conclusion and that was Global Warming was the more realistic view as they are today based on the overwhelming scientific evidence and scientific consensus.

Your argument is back to front because here is what your CIA analogy is attempting to purport:

Today the scientific consensus on Global Warming is 99.994% you are arguing that because there is a 0.006% rejection of Global Warming the science should be rejected.

You would also be attempting to argue that because ONE study out of 17,000 studies reject Global Warming the science on Global warming should be rejected.

If there is ONE dissenting voice of ANY description on GW / CC then the entire scientific evidence and consensus should be scrapped.

It is a nonsense position.

[RickBradford]

Today the scientific consensus on Global Warming is 99.994% you are arguing that because there is a 0.006% rejection of Global Warming the science should be rejected.

. . .

If there is ONE dissenting voice of ANY description on GW / CC then the entire scientific evidence and consensus should be scrapped.

It is a nonsense position.

Agreed. And since you made it up (yet again), it is your nonsense, not mine.

[eliotness]

Again you state "consensus on global Warming is 99.994%". Firstly the article in the Wall Street Journal questions that figure and implies that whilst the majority state that Climate Change is happening, that is the consensus of those questioned who bothered to reply (not dissimilar to some of the polls in Thailand). Secondly, the consensus of scientists did not state that any change was exclusively man-made, and finally there were very few suggestions as to how, if man-made, this should be addressed by various governments. Yet again you ignore the question of unsustainable population growth.

[RickBradford]

^^^

There is a very interesting scientific paper out which shows that as questions grow more complex, a very high consensus becomes a weakness, not a strength.

Something simple, like 2 + 2 = 4, naturally gets 100% consensus (or near to it), something more complex (can subatomic particles travel faster than light?) gets a lower score.

When a social question like "Is Kim Jong Un a swell guy?" (I paraphrase) gets 99.2%, we know something fishy is going on.

Then you have climate change, an extraordinarily complex problem, with multiple variables in a chaotic environment. When somebody turns up and says it is proved to the extent of 99.994%, you know something idiotic is going on.

Usually it's a combination of factors: stupid survey questions, selective winnowing of results and over-simplistic analysis. But the Green/Left is so in love with the idea of solidarity, that they trot out these meaningless surveys on a regular basis so as to achieve their only goal -- to silence all opposition.

Fortunately, it isn't working -- people aren't as stupid as the Green/Left always likes to believe. And the politicians can do nothing but make grandiose declarations of climate penance that amount to nothing.

Edited October 9, 2015 by RickBradford

[canuckamuck]

Then you have climate change, an extraordinarily complex problem, with multiple variables in a chaotic environment. When somebody turns up and says it is proved to the extent of 99.994%, you know something idiotic is going on.

BOOM

[eliotness]

^^^

There is a very interesting scientific paper out which shows that as questions grow more complex, a very high consensus becomes a weakness, not a strength.

Something simple, like 2 + 2 = 4, naturally gets 100% consensus (or near to it), something more complex (can subatomic particles travel faster than light?) gets a lower score.

When a social question like "Is Kim Jong Un a swell guy?" (I paraphrase) gets 99.2%, we know something fishy is going on.

Then you have climate change, an extraordinarily complex problem, with multiple variables in a chaotic environment. When somebody turns up and says it is proved to the extent of 99.994%, you know something idiotic is going on.

Usually it's a combination of factors: stupid survey questions, selective winnowing of results and over-simplistic analysis. But the Green/Left is so in love with the idea of solidarity, that they trot out these meaningless surveys on a regular basis so as to achieve their only goal -- to silence all opposition.

Fortunately, it isn't working -- people aren't as stupid as the Green/Left always likes to believe. And the politicians can do nothing but make grandiose declarations of climate penance that amount to nothing.

As a certain person questioned my qualifications and experience a while ago, a mention of HIS qualifications and experience might give his argument some credibility which currently it seems rather lacking as it appears Rick has just blown him out of the water.

Edited October 9, 2015 by eliotness

[eliotness]

^^^

There is a very interesting scientific paper out which shows that as questions grow more complex, a very high consensus becomes a weakness, not a strength.

Something simple, like 2 + 2 = 4, naturally gets 100% consensus (or near to it), something more complex (can subatomic particles travel faster than light?) gets a lower score.

When a social question like "Is Kim Jong Un a swell guy?" (I paraphrase) gets 99.2%, we know something fishy is going on.

Then you have climate change, an extraordinarily complex problem, with multiple variables in a chaotic environment. When somebody turns up and says it is proved to the extent of 99.994%, you know something idiotic is going on.

Usually it's a combination of factors: stupid survey questions, selective winnowing of results and over-simplistic analysis. But the Green/Left is so in love with the idea of solidarity, that they trot out these meaningless surveys on a regular basis so as to achieve their only goal -- to silence all opposition.

Fortunately, it isn't working -- people aren't as stupid as the Green/Left always likes to believe. And the politicians can do nothing but make grandiose declarations of climate penance that amount to nothing.

Don't forget our friend is stating over and over "it's global warming". Glad I'm not in the fur coat business !

[stevenl]

^^^

There is a very interesting scientific paper out which shows that as questions grow more complex, a very high consensus becomes a weakness, not a strength.

Something simple, like 2 + 2 = 4, naturally gets 100% consensus (or near to it), something more complex (can subatomic particles travel faster than light?) gets a lower score.

When a social question like "Is Kim Jong Un a swell guy?" (I paraphrase) gets 99.2%, we know something fishy is going on.

Then you have climate change, an extraordinarily complex problem, with multiple variables in a chaotic environment. When somebody turns up and says it is proved to the extent of 99.994%, you know something idiotic is going on.

Usually it's a combination of factors: stupid survey questions, selective winnowing of results and over-simplistic analysis. But the Green/Left is so in love with the idea of solidarity, that they trot out these meaningless surveys on a regular basis so as to achieve their only goal -- to silence all opposition.

Fortunately, it isn't working -- people aren't as stupid as the Green/Left always likes to believe. And the politicians can do nothing but make grandiose declarations of climate penance that amount to nothing.

As a certain person questioned my qualifications and experience a while ago, a mention of HIS qualifications and experience might give his argument some credibility which currently it seems rather lacking as it appears Rick has just blown him out of the water.

Huh, what planet are you living on? Rick has list all credibility long time ago.

[RickBradford]

The hilarious part is how the Alarmists don't get this.

A few years ago, they dug up a truly wretched piece of research which claimed a 97% consensus. Nobody took any notice. So, a struggle committee convenes to ponder the question and comes up with an answer. We need to make the message stronger! Let's go for 99.994%! Surely they can't ignore that!

Just like when a crooked property developer offers a bribe to the zoning committee and gets knocked back, he ups the amount of the bribe, thinking that's the only obstacle.

Honestly, the Alarmists lack self-awareness to a staggering degree.

[eliotness]

^^^

There is a very interesting scientific paper out which shows that as questions grow more complex, a very high consensus becomes a weakness, not a strength.

Something simple, like 2 + 2 = 4, naturally gets 100% consensus (or near to it), something more complex (can subatomic particles travel faster than light?) gets a lower score.

When a social question like "Is Kim Jong Un a swell guy?" (I paraphrase) gets 99.2%, we know something fishy is going on.

Then you have climate change, an extraordinarily complex problem, with multiple variables in a chaotic environment. When somebody turns up and says it is proved to the extent of 99.994%, you know something idiotic is going on.

Usually it's a combination of factors: stupid survey questions, selective winnowing of results and over-simplistic analysis. But the Green/Left is so in love with the idea of solidarity, that they trot out these meaningless surveys on a regular basis so as to achieve their only goal -- to silence all opposition.

Fortunately, it isn't working -- people aren't as stupid as the Green/Left always likes to believe. And the politicians can do nothing but make grandiose declarations of climate penance that amount to nothing.

As a certain person questioned my qualifications and experience a while ago, a mention of HIS qualifications and experience might give his argument some credibility which currently it seems rather lacking as it appears Rick has just blown him out of the water.

Huh, what planet are you living on? Rick has list all credibility long time ago.

Unfortunately I live on the real planet earth. So you only think someone is credible if they agree with you ? Interesting concept, bit like the Pope and the Catholic Church.

[stevenl]

^^^

There is a very interesting scientific paper out which shows that as questions grow more complex, a very high consensus becomes a weakness, not a strength.

Something simple, like 2 + 2 = 4, naturally gets 100% consensus (or near to it), something more complex (can subatomic particles travel faster than light?) gets a lower score.

When a social question like "Is Kim Jong Un a swell guy?" (I paraphrase) gets 99.2%, we know something fishy is going on.

Then you have climate change, an extraordinarily complex problem, with multiple variables in a chaotic environment. When somebody turns up and says it is proved to the extent of 99.994%, you know something idiotic is going on.

Usually it's a combination of factors: stupid survey questions, selective winnowing of results and over-simplistic analysis. But the Green/Left is so in love with the idea of solidarity, that they trot out these meaningless surveys on a regular basis so as to achieve their only goal -- to silence all opposition.

Fortunately, it isn't working -- people aren't as stupid as the Green/Left always likes to believe. And the politicians can do nothing but make grandiose declarations of climate penance that amount to nothing.

As a certain person questioned my qualifications and experience a while ago, a mention of HIS qualifications and experience might give his argument some credibility which currently it seems rather lacking as it appears Rick has just blown him out of the water.

Huh, what planet are you living on? Rick has list all credibility long time ago.

Unfortunately I live on the real planet earth. So you only think someone is credible if they agree with you ? Interesting concept, bit like the Pope and the Catholic Church.

If they come with good, honest, convincing arguments they are credible, whether I agree or not. It is about knowledge, not agreement.

Unfortunately both you and Rick are not credible.

[RickBradford]

If they come with good, honest, convincing arguments they are credible, whether I agree or not. It is about knowledge, not agreement.

Quite so. And despite 25 years and hundreds of billions of dollars, the global warming alarmists have utterly failed to make their case. Even the politicians have realised that.

In a world in which politicians are popularly regarded as scumbags and pathological liars, fighting climate change casts them as admirable. The opportunities for political grandstanding are excellent. But do they actually do anything substantive? Nope.

[stevenl]

If they come with good, honest, convincing arguments they are credible, whether I agree or not. It is about knowledge, not agreement.

Quite so. And despite 25 years and hundreds of billions of dollars, the global warming alarmists have utterly failed to make their case. Even the politicians have realised that.

In a world in which politicians are popularly regarded as scumbags and pathological liars, fighting climate change casts them as admirable. The opportunities for political grandstanding are excellent. But do they actually do anything substantive? Nope.

Ah, those pesky politicians that believe god has created earth, that take a snowball in to disprove GW?

They gave no credibility whatsoever.

[eliotness]

So Steven, you think both Rick and I are not credible. So pray tell what qualifications and work experience do you have to make such a sweeping statement. I notice your mate up2u2 refused to reply to a similar question. Also like him are you a denier of the unsustainable birth rate too ?

[up2u2]

Up2u2, you have never responded to my claim and several other posters, that the population growth of mankind poses a greater threat to "life on earth as we know it". Furthermore you concentrate on CO2 emissions, completely ignoring the basket of other "pollutants" that are an immediate and deadly threat to the health of mankind and not some possible risk in the future. Your dismissal of the Wall Street Journal was to be expected and I'd guess you're a Guardian reader, assuming that is you are British. I believe somewhere between the Pope and Marsha Blackburn is the truth, but extremist views from BOTH sides are making sensible debate impossible.

Yes I did. I asked what peer reviewed scientific Modelling you have on the amount of population reduction is required to stabilise GW. Very important to remember eliot I base my opinions on credible peer reviewed studies / research so no Opinion Editorial rubbish from Murdoch's WSJ or Woman's Weekly. I have little to no patients with stupidity.

I did read an article based on agricultural, economic, environmental Modelling that indicated a +8^OC increase in Global Temperatures would only be able to support a population of 750M people. So if we did nothing about GW then the population would be forcibly cut by 90%. 7.3B down to 0.75B by the end of the Century.

Not sure exactly how it could be done because you are going to have to start reducing now. No children for the current generation, shut down manufacturing, bulldoze suburbs as they become vacant, disconnect power infrastructure, relocate cities. Not sure how you would go about it but just off the top of my head say reduction of 3.5 Billion people over the next 40 years maybe and begin shutting down manufacturing and infrastructure.

There is a study here but it seems to need limiting the GW to +2^OC by the end of the Century using renewable energy then a slow decline in population growth over 300 years.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf

If you were to just use a decrease in population what would the modelling look like? How many and how quickly?

[stevenl]

So Steven, you think both Rick and I are not credible. So pray tell what qualifications and work experience do you have to make such a sweeping statement. I notice your mate up2u2 refused to reply to a similar question. Also like him are you a denier of the unsustainable birth rate too ?

With the overwhelming evidence pointing elsewhere no, you're not credible.

I don't recall anybody denying the birthrate is sustainable. But that in itself is already a deflection, to which I will not further respond.

[eliotness]

Up2u2, you have never responded to my claim and several other posters, that the population growth of mankind poses a greater threat to "life on earth as we know it". Furthermore you concentrate on CO2 emissions, completely ignoring the basket of other "pollutants" that are an immediate and deadly threat to the health of mankind and not some possible risk in the future. Your dismissal of the Wall Street Journal was to be expected and I'd guess you're a Guardian reader, assuming that is you are British. I believe somewhere between the Pope and Marsha Blackburn is the truth, but extremist views from BOTH sides are making sensible debate impossible.

Yes I did. I asked what peer reviewed scientific Modelling you have on the amount of population reduction is required to stabilise GW. Very important to remember eliot I base my opinions on credible peer reviewed studies / research so no Opinion Editorial rubbish from Murdoch's WSJ or Woman's Weekly. I have little to no patients with stupidity.

I did read an article based on agricultural, economic, environmental Modelling that indicated a +8^OC increase in Global Temperatures would only be able to support a population of 750M people. So if we did nothing about GW then the population would be forcibly cut by 90%. 7.3B down to 0.75B by the end of the Century.

Not sure exactly how it could be done because you are going to have to start reducing now. No children for the current generation, shut down manufacturing, bulldoze suburbs as they become vacant, disconnect power infrastructure, relocate cities. Not sure how you would go about it but just off the top of my head say reduction of 3.5 Billion people over the next 40 years maybe and begin shutting down manufacturing and infrastructure.

There is a study here but it seems to need limiting the GW to +2^OC by the end of the Century using renewable energy then a slow decline in population growth over 300 years.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf

If you were to just use a decrease in population what would the modelling look like? How many and how quickly?

So you've just admitted that you have no qualifications or work experience in any environmental, especially climate, science. You are an avid reader of selective information on the internet. You called me stupid, rather insulting as you sir have no idea of my qualifications and experience. I could enlighten you but I feel sinking to your level is rather below me.

As for the earth's population, are you so blind as to what's happening that you need "computer modelling" to make any choices. As someone said earlier re computer modelling "bullshit in, bullshit out" Oh I could comment further,but to argue with idiots is to fall down to their level, so I'm bored and possibly "out of here".

[up2u2]

Up2u2, you have never responded to my claim and several other posters, that the population growth of mankind poses a greater threat to "life on earth as we know it". Furthermore you concentrate on CO2 emissions, completely ignoring the basket of other "pollutants" that are an immediate and deadly threat to the health of mankind and not some possible risk in the future. Your dismissal of the Wall Street Journal was to be expected and I'd guess you're a Guardian reader, assuming that is you are British. I believe somewhere between the Pope and Marsha Blackburn is the truth, but extremist views from BOTH sides are making sensible debate impossible.

Yes I did. I asked what peer reviewed scientific Modelling you have on the amount of population reduction is required to stabilise GW. Very important to remember eliot I base my opinions on credible peer reviewed studies / research so no Opinion Editorial rubbish from Murdoch's WSJ or Woman's Weekly. I have little to no patients with stupidity.

I did read an article based on agricultural, economic, environmental Modelling that indicated a +8^OC increase in Global Temperatures would only be able to support a population of 750M people. So if we did nothing about GW then the population would be forcibly cut by 90%. 7.3B down to 0.75B by the end of the Century.

Not sure exactly how it could be done because you are going to have to start reducing now. No children for the current generation, shut down manufacturing, bulldoze suburbs as they become vacant, disconnect power infrastructure, relocate cities. Not sure how you would go about it but just off the top of my head say reduction of 3.5 Billion people over the next 40 years maybe and begin shutting down manufacturing and infrastructure.

There is a study here but it seems to need limiting the GW to +2^OC by the end of the Century using renewable energy then a slow decline in population growth over 300 years.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf

If you were to just use a decrease in population what would the modelling look like? How many and how quickly?

So you've just admitted that you have no qualifications or work experience in any environmental, especially climate, science. You are an avid reader of selective information on the internet. You called me stupid, rather insulting as you sir have no idea of my qualifications and experience. I could enlighten you but I feel sinking to your level is rather below me.

As for the earth's population, are you so blind as to what's happening that you need "computer modelling" to make any choices. As someone said earlier re computer modelling "bullshit in, bullshit out" Oh I could comment further,but to argue with idiots is to fall down to their level, so I'm bored and possibly "out of here".

I didn't say I didn't have any qualifications just haven't done any research on reducing Earth's population to nullify GW / CC. Nor did I say you were stupid. I simply have no time for the stupidity of Murdoch's WSJ Opinion Editorial because when you actually chase down the facts it always turns out to be a load of BS. You may as well read the Woman's Weekly.

I am just asking what you base your view that reducing the Global population to address GW / CC. What reduction in population would be required, what time frame is involved? There is some mathematical calculations on the Paper I linked too but that seems to include a mixture of renewable energy limiting GW to 2^OC, reducing peoples Carbon usage combined with a gradual decline of population over some 400 year time frame.

It seems to be your pet project to address GW / CC so I assumed you had read up on it and had an understanding of the process required. I have an open mind if you have some scientific research on the issue on how it can be achieved I will be interested to read it. No need to get upset I am just asking.