edward writes:
I’ve looked at the literature, and, whilst they seem to “adjust” the numbers from the same data set to suit their needs, they never explicitly publish error intervals (a bad thing in my opinion, but I’m not doing the peer review). So, I will freely concede you your point.
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
John John wrote:
I disagree that the Sierra Club makes no money from their assertions, and I disagree that they have no incentive to slant the data. The Sierra Club exists because of, and depends on, the donations of its members. The more they can make it look like they’re fighting for a worthy cause, the more donations they stand to receive.
A similar conundrum happens in public health research. If you can figure out a way to make something relatively untested (a new chemical, cell phones, whatever) look like it might cause a disease, you can ask for and receive all sorts of government grant money to study the subject further. If your initial tests show no relationship between a possible risk and a disease, though, no one will want to give you more money to test it more thoroughly. So it’s in your best interest to skew the results toward alarmism. http://junkscience.com/news/sws/sws-preface.html contains a rather sarcastic treatment of this subject.
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
tracer
Sierra Club is a “not for profit organization” so they can’t make any money, unlike the polluters who obfuscate to increase the profit margin. I will concede that the SC could use the greater variant to impress people with the dangers of our present and predicted course, but they do not lie and make up data. They have nothing to gain, other than to insure a safe, clean planet for everyone. So, what’s wrong with that?
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
Again, I disagree that a non-profit organization can’t “make any money”. Donations that are pumped back into a non-profit org’s operations – or paid to its employees, including any founders that stay on as well-paid employees – is not considered “profit” and is allowed. And if a non-profit org needs, say, a new, lavish meeting hall for its local chapter, and this new headquarters just happens to be built in such a way that it would make a good summer retreat for the group’s “most valuable” members, well … ?
Need I remind you of the televangelists and faith healers on TV who reap millions of dollars every year in donations and live in the lap of luxury? Their churches are non-profit organizations, too.
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
Oh, but let me clarify:
Despite what I’ve just posted, I do not believe that the Sierra Club is in it for the money.
But I also fervently disagree with the assertion that “not in it for the money” automatically means that their statements are beyond reproach!
tracer
I know what you mean about those teleavangelists swine that bilk people for their money. How DO they get around the “not for profit” thing? I’m pleased you do not include the Sierra Club in that awful mixture. They really are above reproach. Now, if I could only get them to make a policy statement on excessive immigrantion.
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
Oh look! We’ve come full circle! John-John is re-stating exactly the same things he said 300 messages ago!
Are we having fun yet?
dhanson
And has shown proof that the world will suffer from the predicted overpopulation.
Average Average
annual annual
growth population
Year Population rate (%) change
1950 2,556,000,053 1.47 37,766,790
1951 2,593,766,843 1.61 42,041,598
1952 2,635,808,441 1.70 45,320,042
1953 2,681,128,483 1.77 47,842,411
1954 2,728,970,894 1.86 51,338,406
1955 2,780,309,300 1.88 52,854,200
1956 2,833,163,500 1.95 55,719,931
1957 2,888,883,431 1.93 56,395,552
1958 2,945,278,983 1.76 52,219,857
1959 2,997,498,840 1.39 41,952,183
1960 3,039,451,023 1.33 40,623,555
1961 3,080,074,578 1.80 56,010,616
1962 3,136,085,194 2.19 69,397,019
1963 3,205,482,213 2.19 71,006,484
1964 3,276,488,697 2.08 68,914,399
1965 3,345,403,096 2.07 70,127,783
1966 3,415,530,879 2.02 69,642,954
1967 3,485,173,833 2.04 71,746,016
1968 3,556,919,849 2.07 74,525,312
1969 3,631,445,161 2.05 75,116,177
1970 3,706,561,338 2.07 77,388,931
1971 3,783,950,269 2.01 76,776,513
1972 3,860,726,782 1.96 76,368,413
1973 3,937,095,195 1.90 75,720,203
1974 4,012,815,398 1.81 73,475,831
1975 4,086,291,229 1.75 72,044,154
1976 4,158,335,383 1.72 72,332,978
1977 4,230,668,361 1.69 72,277,796
1978 4,302,946,157 1.73 75,190,224
1979 4,378,136,381 1.71 75,641,253
1980 4,453,777,634 1.69 76,123,370
1981 4,529,901,004 1.76 80,253,129
1982 4,610,154,133 1.73 80,342,268
1983 4,690,496,401 1.68 79,417,677
1984 4,769,914,078 1.68 80,660,545
1985 4,850,574,623 1.68 82,406,206
1986 4,932,980,829 1.72 85,511,175
1987 5,018,492,004 1.70 86,077,510
1988 5,104,569,514 1.67 85,734,318
1989 5,190,303,832 1.66 86,688,377
1990 5,276,992,209 1.55 82,450,957
1991 5,359,443,166 1.52 82,324,488
1992 5,441,767,654 1.48 81,119,962
1993 5,522,887,616 1.43 79,698,088
1994 5,602,585,704 1.41 79,779,384
1995 5,682,365,088 1.37 78,566,560
1996 5,760,931,648 1.37 79,513,568
1997 5,840,445,216 1.33 78,179,152
1998 5,918,624,368 1.30 77,590,972
1999 5,996,215,340 1.27 76,883,461
2000 6,073,098,801 1.25 76,318,084
2001 6,149,416,885 1.23 76,100,673
2002 6,225,517,558 1.21 75,881,416
2003 6,301,398,974 1.20 75,784,025
2004 6,377,182,999 1.18 75,600,445
2005 6,452,783,444 1.16 75,488,026
2006 6,528,271,470 1.15 75,639,900
2007 6,603,911,370 1.14 75,803,406
2008 6,679,714,776 1.13 75,957,093
2009 6,755,671,869 1.12 76,021,656
2010 6,831,693,525 1.11 76,016,106
2011 6,907,709,631 1.09 75,848,884
2012 6,983,558,515 1.07 75,343,702
2013 7,058,902,217 1.05 74,603,276
2014 7,133,505,493 1.03 73,698,107
2015 7,207,203,600 1.00 72,789,490
2016 7,279,993,090 0.98 71,927,865
2017 7,351,920,955 0.96 70,996,881
2018 7,422,917,836 0.94 70,028,383
2019 7,492,946,219 0.92 69,012,634
2020 7,561,958,853 0.90 68,174,549
2021 7,630,133,402 0.88 67,514,394
2022 7,697,647,796 0.86 66,784,632
2023 7,764,432,428 0.85 66,045,314
2024 7,830,477,742 0.83 65,307,539
2025 7,895,785,281 0.82 64,711,394
2026 7,960,496,675 0.80 64,250,325
2027 8,024,747,000 0.79 63,748,570
2028 8,088,495,570 0.78 63,259,317
2029 8,151,754,887 0.77 62,796,790
2030 8,214,551,677 0.76 62,388,961
2031 8,276,940,638 0.75 61,987,647
2032 8,338,928,285 0.73 61,459,983
2033 8,400,388,268 0.72 60,884,464
2034 8,461,272,732 0.71 60,295,790
2035 8,521,568,522 0.70 59,651,156
2036 8,581,219,678 0.68 58,893,539
2037 8,640,113,217 0.67 57,891,484
2038 8,698,004,701 0.65 56,768,630
2039 8,754,773,331 0.63 55,673,280
2040 8,810,446,611 0.62 54,545,937
2041 8,864,992,548 0.60 53,361,282
2042 8,918,353,830 0.58 52,056,622
2043 8,970,410,452 0.56 50,709,435
2044 9,021,119,887 0.55 49,440,868
2045 9,070,560,755 0.53 48,202,451
2046 9,118,763,206 0.51 46,946,055
2047 9,165,709,261 0.50 45,561,602
2048 9,211,270,863 0.48 44,126,908
2049 9,255,397,771 0.46 42,814,533
2050 **9,298,212,304**
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Data Base.
If you think we’re having fun now, wait till 2050. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
Question put to Falcon by me
I answered your questions, how about answering mine? Isn’t that the fair thing to do?
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
John John, according to that incredibly long list of figures which you could have just provided a link to instead of copying-and-pasting the whole damn thing!!, the U.S. Census bureau is predicting about a 0.02% annual decrease in the annual growth rate through the next half-century.
Let’s carry that model farther.
Those figures claim a 0.46% annual population growth rate in 2049. At -0.02% per year, the population would reach zero (0.00%) annual growth 23 years later, in 2072. If we extrapolate this model past that point, the annual population growth rate will be -0.02% in 2073, -0.04% in 2074, -0.06% in 2075, etc… By 2095, the population would be back down to its 2049 level of 9.25 billion, and by 2145 it would be back down to the level we have today of 6 billion.
So there you have it! Overpopulation will take care of itself.
John John, according to that incredibly long list of figures which you could have just provided a link to instead of copying-and-pasting the whole damn thing!!, the U.S. Census bureau is predicting about a 0.02% annual decrease in the annual growth rate through the next half-century.
Let’s carry that model farther.
Those figures claim a 0.46% annual population growth rate in 2049. At -0.02% per year, the population would reach zero (0.00%) annual growth 23 years later, in 2072. If we extrapolate this model past that point, the annual population growth rate will be -0.02% in 2073, -0.04% in 2074, -0.06% in 2075, etc… By 2095, the population would be back down to its 2049 level of 9.25 billion, and by 2145 it would be back down to the level we have today of 6 billion.
So there you have it! Overpopulation will take care of itself.
tracer
You will remember that the figure for world population is set at 9 billion in USC Bureau list and the figure you reference the percentage of change.
A 1 billion increase in population represents a bigger percentage of change if the world’s population is 4 billion than a 1 billion increase in population if the world’s population is 9 billion? See?
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
Also note that your cut-and-pased chart predicts not only a reduced annual growth percentage, but fewer total people being added per year as well.
My analysis still stands.
tracer
OK, your analysis can stand but so does the increase in population from our current 6 billion to the predicted 9 billion in a few decades, which all the organization agree will happen. These increase are happening too quickly. Can’t you see that as a problem?
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you’re going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]
Sloopy post, Sorry. Amount, not about
Sloopy? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
John John wrote:
No they’re not.
tracer
Yes they are.
No they’re not.
Yes they are.