There are too many people on this earth for it to support without ruining its natural systems. The factual argument against Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and the Copenhagen “Treaty” is that no AGW remedy avoids a ruinous environmental end unless the population is curtailed. Even perfectly clean, ubiquitous and environmentally neutral energy tomorrow would not prevent 9 or 10 billion humans (and many more than that if we can get to unlimited perfectly clean energy) in 2100 from overrunning the earth with catastrophic effects on natural systems just to feed and entertain them.
AGW is fun to champion as a Great Cause, but rather misses the point from the standpoint of protecting the earth or its future. Our species has already won the consume-the-earth battle by sheer volume and AGW debates are essentially a pleasant diversion that avoids addressing the real problem of overpopulation, which, in the ultimate irony, tends to be a politically sensitive topic in the same circles worried about AGW.
Because I have seen them before, and they are in most cases based in already rebutted or misleading information.
There is a reason why one should demand a quote of the main point, there is no need to quote the whole thing, in fact when one sees people who can not or are unwilling to quote the most important item it shows to many that the skeptic or pseudo skeptic in reality does not understand what the citation say, it is more likely that they were told what to say by denier sources.
Take for example the first item:
That is the Fool Inhofe and one of the misleaders in chief Mark Morano:
What they do is misrepresent, misinterpret and ignore that in science no single paper is the last word:
Unfortunatly Inhoffe and Morano then go to the denialist laundry list with items like “it is the sun, not humans who are causing the current heat rise”.
It is better then to check what has been rebutted already, and so please check the list of items here:
At least I want to see new criticism instead of posters pointing at reheated baloney in the future.
For the umpteenth time, warning that the population increase is the big reason of the problem does not **magically **remove the need to control CO2 or other GW gas emmisions.
And I think our species still has plenty of room to consume intelligently and still support a good number of people (Again, this does not remove a constant warning: stop making too many mouths to feed people!)
You raise an interesting point, one that I addressed in my original post. Much of the concern in the late 60s and early 70s was that overpopulation was the problem, rather than pollution. Did you read any links about John P Holdren and his book Ecoscience? In it he advocates the use of Eugenics to reduce the worlds population. There are many in the UN and those involved with environmental concerns who are very serious about pursuing the agenda of depopulation. They don’t talk openly about this, for obvious reasons.
I know I already posted this in my original post, but it bears repeating. Some of the serious proposals laid out in “Ecoscience” include the following:
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” – in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives – using an armed international police force.
How about denying medical care to those who need it? There is no humane and ethical way to reduce the worlds population that any government could undertake. Could you respond to John P. Holdren’s “Ecoscience” and similar proposals made by people in the environmental movement? Here is the link:
By the way, I don’t think population numbers are the problem. The problem is what we consume and how we use the natural resources of this planet. We should strive to live in a sustainable way. If we all lived nomadic lifestyles and rejected consumerism and reckless consumption, our planet could support tens of billions of people easily. Obviously this will never happen. It does make sense that at some point there will be too many people fighting for too few resources. But nature has a way of establishing balance and equilibrium. A massive plague, a comit, earthquakes, or a coronal mass ejection from the sun could wipe out millions very quickly. I think we should strive to be good stewards of the environment but I don’t think we are on the verge of “using up” the planets resources simply due to numbers.
Would you agree that any effort to reduce world population by an international elite would require a totalitarian government unlike any we have seen previously? This is scary stuff that men of power and influence are very seriously considering attempts to reduce the numbers of people on the planet. What about Vaccines, or poisoned food, or adding substances to the water supply? These are all things that people like John P Holdren are seriously considering as a means to reduce the population. Whether they actually do it or not, is another matter entirely. Just the fact that they are giving it serious consideration is a scary thought.
Look, it appears futile to engage in any sort of discussion of the actual science, since you simply deny the merits of any and all links that I or the other posters link to. There has been A LOT of science posted here that disputes your side of the argument. Your reaction is simply to dismiss it out of hand by labeling those publishing it, “denialists”, as if climate scientists who disagree with your religion are somehow threatening your personal ego, and you react incredulously and defensively. Here’s a rundown of what has been posted already just on this thread:
500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming
Many links dispelling the notion that Co2 is harmful to the environment
Numerous other links to peer reviewed papers that dispute your side of the argument
Numerous links that document significant error in the climate models
Numerous links that show the financial and banking interests who have an interest in hyping up the threat
Many links that show the history of the UN involvement in the environmental movement and their goals
And since we are on the subject, I’m sure you’ve seen this one:
Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Six scientists who dispute that human produced Co2 will lead to serious harm to the Earth’s climate:
Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
Chemistry includes 4,821 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
Engineering and general science includes 10,103 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
I have seen your side of the argument try to refute this list, but the rebuttals come across as desperate and childish. Are ALL of these scientists in the pay of Big Oil?
Basically, despite all that has been posted so far, you react with the equivalent of “nuh uh”. The difference between me and you is that I am not claiming that some honest scientists and organizations don’t believe sincerely that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a real problem. I am claiming that the threat is way overblown for political reasons, the IPCC in particular is not to be taken seriously due to Climategate emails and other known scandals and conflicts of interest, and there is substantial evidence that human caused Co2 is NOT causing catastrophic warming on the planet. And there is a massive and significant group of climate scientists and peer reviewed data that contradicts much of what we are being told in the media, and there is a concerted effort to silence, discredit and stonewall any attempt at exposure and public examination of the real scientific data. I’ve asked this a few times already, but why won’t the IPCC release its raw data under Freedom of Information Act requests? This is the scientific argument I am making.
YOU, on the other hand, seem to be one who links continually to blogs whose sole purpose is to discredit and trash any and all skeptical science irrationally and without merit. You are claiming that NO SERIOUS SCIENTISTS DISPUTE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING. This claim cannot be substantiated.
But since you are so invested in the politics of it all, perhaps we should broaden the debate.
Disputing the actual science was not the main purpose of this thread. The purpose was to expose the political agenda behind the modern environmental movement and to centralize power in a world “organization” (if you feel the word “government” makes it sound too conspiratorial for you). I have actually read a draft of the Copenhagen Treaty. I understand who profits from Cap and Trade (Al Gore and Maurice Strong, among others). How about you reread my original post and respond to the agenda behind the environmental movement? What are your views of Maurice Strong, the profiteers of Cap and Trade, the attack on Capitalism and Industry, John P. Holdren, Ecoscience and Eugenics, Edmund de Rothschild and the World Conservation Bank? How about recent moves towards a world central bank and world currency? How about the proposed 700 new world bureaucracies, a world tax, and world police force? Are you for or against these things?
We could debate the science all day, but you are missing the critical point I am trying to make. Also, if even some of what I am saying about the vested financial interests and political motivation behind this issue are true, why would it not logically make sense that our media would downplay any contrary science and hype up the danger? You really need to read more and lay off the politically motivated liberal blogs.
The main point here is: How can we talk about factual arguments when your arguments are based on misleading information? Then we still have the issue that you still do not demonstrate that you can learn to avoid what was already dismissed or debunked. Or that you understand why the papers that you think are important help your cause.
Once again, check what others have done before, stop reheating baloney. Only by understanding the basis of the science is that then one can sincerely discuss what should be the reasonable political thing to do.
Sourcewatch is hardly an impartial source; its political leanings are very evident.
Gigo, your whole method of arguing on this subject seems to consist of insisting loudly that sources which question global warming must be fools and scoundrels, whereas sources which uphold global warming are the living embodiment of scientific integrity, all the while shouting, “There’s a consensus! There’s a consensus!” over and over again. It grows tiresome.
You evidently are not familiar with how to make cites on this board. We do not proceed by just posting dozens of links and letting others try to figure out which ones to follow. Instead, you should post the actual quotes to back up your arguments. I’ve followed the links and haven’t really read anything to back up your claims. Moreover, all three of these websites are full of ranting about the United Nations, one world government, the NWO, the Illuminati, the Jewish bankers, etc… Exactly the same sort of batty conspiracy theories that you insist are entirely different from the ones you’re making. Post links to credible sources and then quote the important parts here.
That is because why there is a consensus is established also by the preponderance of the papers in favor of AGW. And the acceptance of it in academia, research publications and scientific organizations.
As for the source watch thing, once again what is important also is who was more accurate even if one could make the point it was biased.
He requested only one, only to show then that it does not matter if he was wrong on that point.
In any case, the numbers he replied with are silly, this is what consensus looks like:
When one checks by field, 3% the signers of the Oregon petition are/were in computers and math. What is curious there is that deniers constantly tell us that models are not accurate, you would think then that even more than the number that they got would sight up.
Back with the useless excuse used by others of not looking at the citations?
Yes, there is more than that and many others can see how dishonest is to just concentrating on the messenger, one should deal with the sources as well.
Hah! I have to laugh because I do remember how you dealt with the sources on a previous tread after sneering at the CRU and IPCC researchers. On that occasion you avoided dealing with the reality that the tabloid and right wing media lied and misrepresented the “scandals” you never came back to deal with the science and the evidence. And to deal with the evidence that most of the sources that the denialist use are not to be trusted.
Just like you are now doing, avoiding looking at the sources that my cites use.