There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Truth To Power wrote:But climate change hysteria is very much of a piece with the all the other eco-screaming we have been repeatedly subjected to since the 1960s.
Yes, actually, it does: silly shrieking based on eco-nonscience is still with us today, in the form of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria (absurdly and dishonestly called, "climate change").
Sivad wrote:I give it a 75% probability that the global average temp has gone up at least half a degree c over the last hundred years and I give it 50/50 that more than half of that warming is anthropogenic.
but who cares what I think, the only thing that matters is what the experts agree on and how much confidence we can rationally have in the experts after a critical institutional analysis of the field of climate science.
And they, interestingly enough, are doing very little, nothing, or worse than nothing.
Sivad wrote: They've implemented carbon pricing in every major Western country, they've invested over two trillion in alternative energy boondoggles, they're refusing loans for carbon fuel power plants, and they're forcing the developing world into genocidal planning and development schemes. They've done an enormous amount of mischief and they're only just getting started.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Whatever the term is when you do not make an actual argument but instead dismiss your opponents for being hysterical. That is the fallacy, whatever you wish to call it.
SolarCross wrote:I wonder if the climate fad is related to the peak oil fad of yesteryear as they are both narratives which are designed to arrive at rather similar outcomes: arrest human technological and economic development by knocking away the energy pillar that supports it.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you believe that the Earth is getting warmer?
Do you believe that this is due to human impact?
If so, how much of it is due to human impact?
Truth To Power wrote:Claims with no basis in verifiable empirical fact can be dismissed on logical grounds alone; but hysteria adds another very valid reason to dismiss them: they are dishonestly preying on human psychological vulnerabilities.
In the case of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria, there's also the added goal of halting or even reversing the improvement in the atmosphere's ability to support plant growth and agriculture.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, this is not an argument. You are just implying that people who disagree with you are either hysterical or nefarious.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your opinion of the people who disagree with you is irrelevant.
How do you know that the EArth has stopped warming?
Truth To Power wrote:Arctic sea ice reached a cyclical low in 2012 that was close to the cyclical low recorded in the 1930s, and has increased since then. This puts the lie to the common AGW screamer claim that surface and atmospheric temperatures are not rising because the extra heat caused by CO2 is going into the oceans.
Other indicators also point to a halt in warming, or even a reversal into cooling: many record low temperatures in locations all over the world, snowfalls where snow has not been seen in decades or even centuries, etc. Where I live, the winter of 2016-17 was the coldest ever recorded, 2017-18 the second coldest, summer 2018 the shortest and coolest summer, and February 2019 was the coldest February on record. That's not just weather. That's a sustained pattern that amounts to a cooler climate.
Winter is coming. And when it does, AGW screamers are gonna have some 'splainin' to do.
Truth To Power wrote:Yes, of course it did.
It is indisputably unscientific garbage. The only graphs that are close to the LtG projections are ones that make no prediction more complex than, "the recent trend will continue." All the more complex predictions, such as declining food production, have been proved wildly wrong. When LtG projected slowing global population growth because of starvation and poverty, the fact that population growth has slowed because of reduced fertility is not confirmation of their projection, sorry.
You are makin' $#!+ up again.
It's the silly doomsayer cult that is wasting everyone's time, as well as effort and money.
Sivad wrote:The Limits to Panic
We often hear how the world as we know it will end, usually through ecological collapse. Indeed, more than 40 years after the Club of Rome released the mother of all apocalyptic forecasts, The Limits to Growth, its basic ideas – though thoroughly discredited – are still shaping mindsets and influencing public policy.
The Limits to Growth warned humanity in 1972 that devastating collapse was just around the corner. But, while we have seen financial panics since then, there have been no real shortages or productive breakdowns. Instead, the resources generated by human ingenuity remain far ahead of human consumption.
But the report’s fundamental legacy remains: we have inherited a tendency to obsess over misguided remedies for largely trivial problems, while often ignoring big problems and sensible remedies.
In the early 1970’s, the flush of technological optimism was over, the Vietnam War was a disaster, societies were in turmoil, and economies were stagnating. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring had raised fears about pollution and launched the modern environmental movement; Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 title The Population Bomb said it all. The first Earth Day, in 1970, was deeply pessimistic.
The genius of The Limits to Growth was to fuse these worries with fears of running out of stuff. We were doomed, because too many people would consume too much. Even if our ingenuity bought us some time, we would end up killing the planet and ourselves with pollution. The only hope was to stop economic growth itself, cut consumption, recycle, and force people to have fewer children, stabilising society at a significantly poorer level.
That message still resonates today, though it was spectacularly wrong. For example, the authors of The Limits to Growth predicted that before 2013, the world would have run out of aluminium, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc.
Instead, despite recent increases, commodity prices have generally fallen to about a third of their level 150 years ago. Technological innovations have replaced mercury in batteries, dental fillings, and thermometers: mercury consumption is down 98% and, by 2000, the price was down 90%. More broadly, since 1946, supplies of copper, aluminium, iron, and zinc have outstripped consumption, owing to the discovery of additional reserves and new technologies to extract them economically.
Similarly, oil and natural gas were to run out in 1990 and 1992, respectively; today, reserves of both are larger than they were in 1970, although we consume dramatically more. Within the past six years, shale gas alone has doubled potential gas resources in the United States and halved the price.
As for economic collapse, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global GDP per capita will increase 14-fold over this century and 24-fold in the developing world.
The Limits of Growth got it so wrong because its authors overlooked the greatest resource of all: our own resourcefulness. Population growth has been slowing since the late 1960’s. Food supply has not collapsed (1.5 billion hectares of arable land are being used, but another 2.7 billion hectares are in reserve). Malnourishment has dropped by more than half, from 35% of the world’s population to under 16%.
Nor are we choking on pollution. Whereas the Club of Rome imagined an idyllic past with no particulate air pollution and happy farmers, and a future strangled by belching smokestacks, reality is entirely the reverse.
In 1900, when the global human population was 1.5 billion, almost three million people – roughly one in 500 – died each year from air pollution, mostly from wretched indoor air. Today, the risk has receded to one death per 2,000 people. While pollution still kills more people than malaria does, the mortality rate is falling, not rising.
Nonetheless, the mindset nurtured by The Limits to Growth continues to shape popular and elite thinking.
Consider recycling, which is often just a feel-good gesture with little environmental benefit and significant cost. Paper, for example, typically comes from sustainable forests, not rainforests. The processing and government subsidies associated with recycling yield lower-quality paper to save a resource that is not threatened.
Likewise, fears of over-population framed self-destructive policies, such as China’s one-child policy and forced sterilization in India. And, while pesticides and other pollutants were seen to kill off perhaps half of humanity, well-regulated pesticides cause about 20 deaths each year in the US, whereas they have significant upsides in creating cheaper and more plentiful food.
Indeed, reliance solely on organic farming – a movement inspired by the pesticide fear – would cost more than $100 billion annually in the US. At 16% lower efficiency, current output would require another 65 million acres of farmland – an area more than half the size of California. Higher prices would reduce consumption of fruits and vegetables, causing myriad adverse health effects (including tens of thousands of additional cancer deaths per year).
Obsession with doom-and-gloom scenarios distracts us from the real global threats. Poverty is one of the greatest killers of all, while easily curable diseases still claim 15 million lives every year – 25% of all deaths.
The solution is economic growth. When lifted out of poverty, most people can afford to avoid infectious diseases. China has pulled more than 680 million people out of poverty in the last three decades, leading a worldwide poverty decline of almost a billion people. This has created massive improvements in health, longevity, and quality of life.
The four decades since The Limits of Growth have shown that we need more of it, not less. An expansion of trade, with estimated benefits exceeding $100 trillion annually toward the end of the century, would do thousands of times more good than timid feel-good policies that result from fear-mongering. But that requires abandoning an anti-growth mentality and using our enormous potential to create a brighter future.
Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, founded and directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It.
ralfy wrote:Reduced fertility doesn't mean population peak. Look up population momentum.
Do you have any evidence showing population peaking due to lower birthrates earlier than what is estimated for LtG?
So every citizen causality [ sic ] is ok. If you[…]
At the expense of how many other jobs? You're igno[…]
What seems to have escaped you is that the Presid[…]
The dependence of the world economy on energy reco[…]