Do we need population reduction?

[Ben D]

Jack Riddler said...Interesting that our resident global warming deniers think they'll be taking a trip on the Enterprise!

Thanks for catching that Hol, JR probably knows as much about the state of the global space industry as he does about global warming...

..and this is to refute his claim that I deny global warming. I hereby acknowledge that there has been roughly 0.8 degree C warming in the last 160 years....but no increase in warming in the last 16 years....scary huh?

[wintler2]

You keep looking at that graph BenD, as the 50% bleached Great Barrier Reef crumbles and the next tropical cyclone comes in your front door.

I worry for you in the meantime, with that site you got the graph from.. their tolerance of racial hatred (see 'Jooos') is pretty telling.

[JackRiddler]

Sorry, not a global warming denier.

Just a techno-fetishist and would-be enabler of unlimited hydrocarbon burning.

[Ben D]

http://catallaxyfiles.com/..

You keep looking at that graph BenD, as the 50% bleached Great Barrier Reef crumbles and the next tropical cyclone comes in your front door.

I worry for you tho, with that site you link to.. their tolerance of racial hatred (see 'Jooos') is pretty telling, don't pseudofascists ever progress?

Haha...don't worry about me bro, those who desire authoritative human action on reducing the numbers of their fellow humans are more likely deserving of being of a fascist bent,..and don't try and divert the focus away from the evidence put in front of you,...science is about the truth, if you have a problem with that graph, do please feel free to point out where you think it is wrong by addressing the salient issue. However since this is not the appropriate thread, if you want to take issue with me concerning the scientific truth of that graph, please feel free to start a thread on it,..otherwise it is understood that you accept it as reflecting the true state of affairs. And keep in mind the meaning of the word 'salient' and don't ever think that raising issues of coral reefs, cyclones, etc., in the context of discussing the accuracy or not of this graph is somehow the point.

[Ben D]

Sorry, not a global warming denier.

Just a techno-fetishist and would-be enabler of unlimited hydrocarbon burning.

You seem to have this fetish about name calling,..hmmm,..perhaps fetishist suits you as a name,..is that ok?

[wintler2]

Sorry, not a global warming denier.

Just a techno-fetishist and would-be enabler of unlimited hydrocarbon burning.

You seem to have this fetish about name calling,..hmmm,..perhaps fetishist suits you as a name,..is that ok?

If you don't like the label, don't typify the pathology.

[Wombaticus Rex]

If you don't like the label, don't typify the pathology.

...said every state-appointed psychiatrist ever. I dunno, pathology is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but the diagnosis itself is definitely ad hominem territory, here in the real world of actual words with meanings.

If you can't make a case for actually banning Ben D that doesn't involve "I don't agree with him," let's all just move on instead of taking short digs at every post he makes. Please, fuck, come on. He's here, we all know what he thinks, AND THE WORLD DIDN'T END.

[justdrew]

Ben D, the excess heat is mostly going into warming the ocean and melting the ice. The heat doesn't just sit in the atmosphere.

[Ben D]

Ben D, the excess heat is mostly going into warming the ocean and melting the ice. The heat doesn't just sit in the atmosphere.

Why are you talking about? I have just provided a graph of the temperatures from global recognized climate authorities, I accept them, do you?

However since this thread is primarily about the population reduction question, if you want to show off the depth of your understanding on the global climate change debate, this thread may suit you....http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26525&p=486103#p486103

[Wombaticus Rex]

Ben: on a similar note, you do recognize that global mean temperature ≠ climate, right?

Bear in mind I say that as an agnostic on the subject -- (simply don't give a fuck compared to agri-foods, racist fascist oligarchies and ocean acidification, sorry, I have a limited bandwith for causes and most of it is taken up by tigers.) I just wanted to be sure you're operating in good faith and clear understanding and hopefully, no small amount of yogic/somatic bliss, too.

[wintler2]

If you don't like the label, don't typify the pathology.

...said every state-appointed psychiatrist ever. I dunno, pathology is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but the diagnosis itself is definitely ad hominem territory, here in the real world of actual words with meanings.

If you can't make a case for actually banning Ben D that doesn't involve "I don't agree with him," let's all just move on instead of taking short digs at every post he makes. Please, fuck, come on. He's here, we all know what he thinks, AND THE WORLD DIDN'T END.

So if it looks walks & quacks like a duck, its ad hominem to call it a duck? In your world maybe, good luck with that.
Also, I only bother with BenDs offtopic and usually easily refuteable posts in the few threads i am interested in, have never called for anyones banning, and so am puzzled at your hyperbole.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Yes, if you think someone is a Fascist because they quack like a Fascist, it's still an ad hominem to call them a Fascist.

If I'm wrong, let me know.

I am under the impression that RI is here to be tolerant of people who harbor serious doubts about subjects where there is almost total consensus.

[brekin]

This is worthy enough to go in the RI quote only thread, but I'm too lazy right now to even change threads.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:

I am under the impression that RI is here to be tolerant of people who harbor serious doubts about subjects where there is almost total consensus.

[Ben D]

Ben: on a similar note, you do recognize that global mean temperature ≠ climate, right?
Bear in mind I say that as an agnostic on the subject -- (simply don't give a fuck compared to agri-foods, racist fascist oligarchies and ocean acidification, sorry, I have a limited bandwith for causes and most of it is taken up by tigers.) I just wanted to be sure you're operating in good faith and clear understanding and hopefully, no small amount of yogic/somatic bliss, too.

Of course W Rex, but the AGW computer modelling which is the very basis of the global warming scare predicts accelerated global warming as human derived global CO2 emissions grow linearly. The reality is that global temperatures are not warming in the way the models predict,...the models are failing!!!

From the leaked draft the IPCC AR5, you can see the previous and current IPCC model forecasts, ie... FAR (1990), SAR (1995), TAR (2001), and AR4 (2007), against actual temperature...the global temperature as it is now falls below every forecast,...the model are plain wrong, the science is not settled!!!
Note..the grey area is not a part of the models..



Also note from the above actual global temperatures that there has been no warming for the last 16 years...

[justdrew]

Climate scientists dismiss IPCC “leak” linking warming to cosmic rays
Last updated on 14 December 2012, 4:19 pm | By John Parnell

Conclusions drawn from a draft of the next IPCC climate science report by sceptics have left scientists bemused.

An unfinished version of the fifth IPCC assessment report (AR5) was leaked last night by climate sceptic blogger Alec Rawls.

Claims were then made by a number of commentators that cosmic rays were responsible for climate change.

Subsequent paragraphs dealing with the theory that increased solar magnetic activity was deflecting cloud forming cosmic radiation past earth, concluded that it was highly unlikely to have an impact.

“It beggars belief to see how people, apparently without relevant knowledge, could make up such nonsense and get the blogosphere buzzing,” IPCC author Dr Richard Klein of the Stockholm Environment Institute told RTCC.

Klein points out claims of a leak are baseless, given that the draft is available to anyone who registers as a reviewer, and says he is disappointed with the attention the claim generated.

But he does admit that transparency has its drawbacks, and that making drafts entirely open to the public would not be a wise move.

“First, IPCC chapter author teams need time to assess all relevant literature for its specific chapter, and to link with other chapters. This requires various iterations. It means that draft chapters are almost always incomplete and possibly inconsistent. Draft chapters are work in progress and, when made available to the public, could lead to confusion and misinformation,” he said.

“Second, anybody who considers themselves to be an expert, and that includes sceptics, can sign up to be a reviewer of the draft chapters. This is done in good faith, and the more experts provide genuine review comments, the better the IPCC chapters will be. This means that draft chapters are by no means secret, and therefore to suggest there has been a ‘leak’ is silly,” he said.

Cosmic rays

The lead author of the chapter published, Professor Steve Sherwood, told ABC in Australia that the conclusions drawn by the blogger responsible – that Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) cause climate change – are way off the mark.

“Oh that’s completely ridiculous,” Sherwood told ABC’s PM programme. “I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.”

UK climate scientist Professor Chris Rapley is confident the public will draw their own conclusions from attempts to distort the science.

“People have to decide who they believe. Personally I do not find it at all convincing that the quotes from AR5 undermine the case for man-made climate change; in fact the opposite, the leaked material appears to lend more support than ever to the science,” he told RTCC.

“My feeling is that journalists and the public won’t be fooled by this. What we all need is careful evaluation of the evidence to support prudent actions for a better future,” he added.

Timing

The publication of AR5, expected in September 2013, will build on the work of its predecessor, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Its release will come at a crucial time for the climate with a number organisations including the IEA predicting a deadline for substantial action before the end of the decade.

The UN climate change negotiations are also at a crucial juncture with just three years left to formulate a global deal on emissions reductions. The next IPCC could inject some urgency into the negotiations.

“The last roll of the dice for climate change sceptics is an appeal to cosmic rays from outer space,” said Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

“It’s a wacky theory, the evidence is pretty weak and if Alec Rawls had been honest enough to print the end of the section that he selectively quoted it is clear that the conclusion that the evidence is weak and it is unlikely to be an explanation if climate change.”

Rawls registered as a reviewer of AR5 and as such had access to the draft, but in registering, had agreed not to publish the unfinished work.

“The IPCC operates on a system, as most of the scientific community does, an honour system that the review process is meant to be confidential. It shows they [sceptics] are not willing to sign up to the same high standards of behaviour that the rest of the scientific community practice. It’s a disgrace,” Ward who is also a reviewer of the next report, told RTCC.

Ward also called on the IPCC to immediately debunk the claims of sceptics regarding the science, rather than focusing on process and how the information was made public in the short term.

Klein acknowledges that this might have to be a consideration in the longer term.

“The IPCC should do a better job at explaining its procedures, and why those procedures exist, and stick to them to the letter. Hopefully that would help to restore trust in the IPCC, and next time a draft becomes public, there’s no need for bloggers or other media to make such a fuss of it,” said Klein.

The IPCC has issued a statement in response to the release of the unfinished report.

”These drafts were provided in confidence to reviewers and are not for distribution. It is regrettable that one out of many hundreds of reviewers broke the terms of the review and posted the drafts.”