Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 411121314
Results 131 to 135 of 135

Thread: Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

  1. Default

    Are glaciers growing or retreating?

    Below is why the media doesn't report anything about growing glaciers. Click on intermediate for more in depth info.



    Link to this page
    The skeptic argument...


    Glaciers are growing
    "Reports are coming in from all over the world: for the first time in over 250 years, glaciers in Alaska, Canada, New Zealand, Greenland, and now Norway are growing." (JamulBlog)

    What the science says...

    Select a level... Basic
    Intermediate

    Most glaciers are retreating, posing a serious problem for millions who rely on glaciers for water. Although Glaciologists measure year-to-year changes in glacier activity, it is the long term changes which provide the basis for statements such as "Global Glacier Recession Continues". Some Skeptics confuse these issues by cherry picking individual glaciers or by ignoring long term trends. Diversions such as these do not address the most important question of what is the real state of glaciers globally?

    The answer is not only clear but it is definitive and based on the scientific literature. Globally glaciers are losing ice at an extensive rate (Figure 1). There are still situations in which glaciers gain or lose ice more than typical for one region or another but the long term trends are all the same.


    Figure 1: Long term changes in glacier volume adapted from Cogley 2009.

    It is also very important to understand that glacier changes are not only dictated by air temperature changes but also by precipitation. Therefore, there are scenarios in which warming can lead to increases in precipitation (and thus glacier ice accumulation) such as displayed in part of southwestern Norway during the 1990s (Nesje et al 2008).

    The bottom line is that glacier variations can be dependent on localized conditions but that these variations are superimposed on a clear and evident long term global reduction in glacier volume which has accelerated rapidly since the 1970s.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Stapleton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Burnham View Post
    That is the point of this thread. The topic of the thread is questioning the assumption that there is not enough to go around (aka over-population / Malthusianism). You are assuming the conclusion within your argument, which is circular and therefore fallacious.

    The question of whether there is enough food and resources available (to ensure a reasonable living standard) depends largely on the rate of human population growth doesn't it?

    You seem obsessed with one side of the equation while ignoring the other side.

    Humans share this planet. We don't own it. How many habitats and ecosystems of other species do you need to destroy before you are satisfied?

    You're addicted to human population growth. You're a junkie.

    You need a new job.
    You are completely off base. I do not advocate population growth. Are you dense or something? I am of the belief, based on CURRENT DATA, that there are sufficient resources to feed even those people in over-populated 3rd world countries. Thomas Malthus' own theory has been proved incorrect by the facts. He is perhaps not entirely to blame, after all, who in his day could have foreseen the advances we've made in food production?

    Find another thread in which to vent your spleen.

    :moon:
    GO_SECURE

    monk


    "It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

    James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)

  3. #133
    Mark Stapleton Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Burnham View Post

    You are completely off base. I do not advocate population growth. Are you dense or something?

    But you do advocate population growth. The evidence comes from your own posts.

    In post #109 you state: Over population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the miniscule increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.


    Way back in post #1 you state: The Malthusian/Darwinian paradigm limits our ability to truly support the human race because of its inappropriately catastrophic view of population growth

    And there's the title of the thread itself: Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device.

    Your inexplicable inability to recognise exponential human population growth as the root cause of all our current food, resource and environmental problems renders me speechless, but I wouldn't call you dense.

    However, I think Malthus was more rational than you are. Maybe that's because he wasn't a real estate agent.

  4. Default

    Mark,

    You've been attempting to make this personal for a number of posts. Stay on the topic and don't attack the person. Population Growth ALARMISM -- is the key phrase--ALARMISM. I am not advocating population growth. I am questioning the catastrophic view of the world as promoted by Malthus, in which he says that there is not enough to go around. Obviously if there IS currently plenty to go around (as every source reports from the United Nations to private hunger organizations) then there is no need for any to be starving to death as they now are. The problem is not with supply it is with distribution and with various political/economic factors.

    Are you incapable of comprehending what I said about over population not being the source of increased C02? Try to stay with me on this one: If it was true that over population is the reason for increased C02, then the United States, which is not over populated, would not be the world's largest contributor to C02 emissions--India would be. But, as it is, the United States is the highest contributor and not over populated--so there is no direct correlation between population and increased C02.

    You may not like THE FACTS, but there they are. If you doubt them--do some research for yourself and report back. If you find that I'm wrong from your facts I will investigate and honestly admit if I'm in error.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Stapleton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Burnham View Post

    You are completely off base. I do not advocate population growth. Are you dense or something?

    But you do advocate population growth. The evidence comes from your own posts.

    In post #109 you state: Over population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the miniscule increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.


    Way back in post #1 you state: The Malthusian/Darwinian paradigm limits our ability to truly support the human race because of its inappropriately catastrophic view of population growth

    And there's the title of the thread itself: Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device.

    Your inexplicable inability to recognise exponential human population growth as the root cause of all our current food, resource and environmental problems renders me speechless, but I wouldn't call you dense.

    However, I think Malthus was more rational than you are. Maybe that's because he wasn't a real estate agent.
    GO_SECURE

    monk


    "It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

    James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)

  5. #135
    Mark Stapleton Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Burnham View Post

    You've been attempting to make this personal for a number of posts. Stay on the topic and don't attack the person. Population Growth ALARMISM -- is the key phrase--ALARMISM.

    OK.


    The topic is ALARMISM.


    And the key phrase is Population Growth ALARMISM. I get it.


    Does this mean I'm prone to raising alarms without sufficient reason? Exaggerating dangers and all that?


    Clever manoeuvre. I'm a population growth alarmist. There's no place for me on this thread.
    Last edited by Mark Stapleton; 09-01-2011 at 06:23 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •