| houston1127
|
BX, the population will level off when one's nation is "developed". Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, etc all have stable or declining populations(if you don't account for immigration). The rest of the world is going to have to go through its development to reach population equilibrium.
Reply #142. Feb 18 10, 4:25 PM
|
daver852 
|
Well, by the time that happens, Haiti and Zimbabwe will both have populations exceeding one billion.
Reply #143. Feb 18 10, 5:37 PM
|
Cymruambyth
|
daver, re your post #139. Northern hemisphere snow nears record levels? That must be due to the the major snowfalls in the United States (even in those states where snow is a rarity) and Western Europe, which also isn't used to the kind of snowfalls it had at the end of 2009. It certainly doesn't apply in Canada where we've had far less snow over the past five-ten years than we used to get. The shovelling chores have been relatively light of late!
Reply #144. Feb 19 10, 7:15 AM
|
satguru
|
I may have mentioned this before regarding the snow, as I don't just share the bad news here but all over the place, but someone did just announce both on the radio and then in the papers last week that the UK can expect more cold winters with climate change.
Now if they really honestly expect anyone, especially young children who pick up nonsense very quickly and say so, to swallow arrant garbage like that which ought to only be seen in novels like 1984 then we really are doomed, not by climate but by sheer madness.
But also of course if they'd stuck to the original term of global warming they couldn't have got away with such dross so easily. What next, climate change will cause another ice age? Give me a break...
Reply #145. Feb 19 10, 11:58 AM
|
daver852
|
Click on the link, Cym. It shows a map. Virtually all of Canada (over 99.9%) snow-covered. Last week there was snow on the ground on parts of all 48 contiguous states, and the state of Alaska was completely snow-covered. Of course, cold temperatures and snow are mere weather, not climate, but still . . .
Reply #146. Feb 19 10, 12:40 PM
|
fontenilles
|
"Are "global warmists" the real deniers?"
Sadly they are not. The diniers are are the ones that have listened to Govermenent DESINFORMATION.
Sorry but science/ satistics and just plan common sense says we are heading for a serious human wipe out!
I'm sure our 'leaders' have somewhere to go to, BUT if some scienticests are right, they won't have many to lead except some fish. Funny I find my self thinking of Noah!
Robin
Reply #148. Feb 23 10, 6:32 PM
|
fontenilles
|
Oop! you are going to have to excuse my spelling in my post. Sorry still have crossing the equator lag. Fe** 12 hours in a Plane with 2 hrs either side
My brain is dead
Robin :)
Reply #149. Feb 23 10, 6:43 PM
|
satguru
|
Government disinformation? You mean Gordon Brown's 30 days to save the world or Obama labelling CO2 a pollutant? You're right about the impending disaster, but it's for our civilisation, freedom, way of life and honesty of the ruling classes which is on the way out.
The governments however are not denying anything to do with climate change as it's their best weapon since propaganda was invented. It is the scapegoat and excuse for absolutely anything they want it to be, including now cold winters in Britain. They are messing with our minds and our pockets and every single example I've come across of the impending doom you and Al Gore seem to imagine can easily be shown to be the exact opposite, every single time. I'm not a disbeliever as I work for an oil company, drive a huge car or simply am ignorant. I accepted what they said about 10 years ago until I soon found it was wrong. The fact so few people want to believe human beings they are supposed to respect can behave in such a reprehensible way means it must be those who realise they are who must be wrong. How can that be?
Reply #150. Feb 23 10, 8:23 PM
|
daver852
|
Twelve hours in a plane? Oh, Robin, I hate to think of the size of your carbon footprint!
Reply #151. Feb 23 10, 10:09 PM
|
Cymruambyth
|
daver, I didn't say that we had no snow. I said that we had less snow. Of course we're covered in snow, but that snow isn't as deep as it used to be - or needs to be to conserve soil on the prairies! We live with this situation, chum. Our farmers are very concerned. No, they're not scientists but they live on the land and they know from observation and experience that climate change, global warming, whatever anyone wants to call it, is having an effect.
Reply #152. Mar 09 10, 9:45 AM
|
| lesley153
|
Isn't that the definition of a scientist - someone who acquires knowledge from observation and experience?
Reply #153. Mar 09 10, 11:06 AM
|
REDVIKING57
|
Almost Lesley. He/She also has to have at least an extra 10 years education,so he can have lots of letters after his name,then write down his experiences and observations. Once written down,he has to be prepared for the inevitable twisting of his words,deliberate misinterpretations,and minor edits to fit other peoples views/beliefs. Then comes the lampooning and ridicule if his research doesn't sit nice and squarely with the opinions of the pseudo-scientists,politicians,big business and anyone else with a vested interest,professional or leisure,in his chosen field of study. The trouble with science in the 21st century is it's too much like statistics - people can interpret it any way they choose. Instead of opening their eyes and looking.
Reply #154. Mar 09 10, 12:22 PM
|
jonnowales
|
The problem is, it is the observational sciences and not the experimental sciences that are getting the funding, and more importantly the media attention, at the moment (climate change and astrophysics (with exception to particle accelerators)). The problem thus, is not with the statistics, but the application and extrapolation of statistics with regards the observational sciences.
With the experimental sciences you can apply the statistics to your experimental findings and present BOTH your analysis/interpretation AND your raw data. Then anybody with the equipment can replicate that experiment and see for themselves - this takes much of the many-interpretations phenomenon that plagues climate science out of experimental sciences. In climate science there is no raw data - we are never presented with raw data, just extrapolations and computer models. This is why it is contentious.
Reply #155. Mar 09 10, 1:31 PM
|
| lesley153
|
Thanks for filling in the gaps, Paul. I had a suspicion there was more to it than observing and experiencing and wearing a clean white coat.
Reply #157. Mar 09 10, 1:52 PM
|
REDVIKING57
|
Well,that's a view,Jon - one that I can largely agree with. The problems start with the 'extrapolations',not the 'raw data'. So,surely you don't need to be a scientist with a brain the size of a planet to solve the problem? In the words of the immortal Sgt. Joe Friday : "The facts,mam,just the facts"! Wouldn't be that difficult,would it? For example,I understand meteorologists have kept meticulous records for a few hundred years now. Easy enough to work out average temperatures(Highs and Lows),rainfall(Precipitation) and hours of sunshine in,say,blocks of twenty years for the whole of the 20th. century. That would give us an accurate trend,over a reasonable period of time? Or am I just being a thick pleb whose only use to 'science' is work hard and pay the taxes,or profits,to fund 'research'?
Reply #158. Mar 09 10, 2:07 PM
|
satguru
|
I hope the parallel profession to science is law, which is why the inconsistencies and holes appeared to stand out very quickly after a short time to me. I'm not even professionally qualified but knowing the theory and teaching it means I'm familiar enough with legal process to see a case falling apart rapidly. And the complement to the judge is the jury, they need no expert knowledge, just what's presented to them in the case. Lawyers need to learn all sorts of technical material for cases and no one questions their grasp of it when they point out the prosecution case is a steaming pile (the defence are allowed to cast aspersions, the prosectution are not as they are potentially removing someone's liberty).
Can you see the similarities appearing? And those not covered by scientific and legal process can be easily learned studying the historic operations of the Mafia. And that is neither a joke nor an exaggeration, the tactics are identical. Omerta.
Reply #159. Mar 09 10, 7:30 PM
|
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
Play Now! 
: 