I've said it before and I'll say it again. Regardless of whether or not climate change is quickening or just part of a normal cycle and whether or not its influenced by human activity, it's all a huge sideshow compared to the exponential increase in human population since 1900 - the single biggest threat to civilization and maybe the long-term viability of our species we've ever faced. But by all means carry on.
People rarely talk about how there's only so much water to go around. There's less and less per person as there are more persons. I've seen it suggested that the entire population of the earth could fit in Texas. That got me to thinking if it were possible, so I did the math and it sure is. You'd have to build up more than 2 stories though. You'd make food for everyone using hydroponics.
Sure, you can claim there is a consensus. It's not intellectually honest, but you can make that claim.
I don't think "consensus" has anything to do with science. It's something related to elections and polling. Political in nature, not science. They could take a poll where 100% of the scientists say the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so. Nor do I think the polls are accurate. It'd be like saying Obama won with 97% of the vote if you don't count the dissenters.
People who don't believe in pollution are idiots. People who accept the theory of AGW based on disproved models are acting on faith, and not science.
Yes, I believe in pollution and that we should do what's reasonable to avoid polluting the air and water. The AGW guys are complaining about CO2. What are we supposed to do, not breathe?
It is. That's not what is being proposed, though. The degree of "scaling back" and its effect also have to be questioned. For example, the WEFA estimated the cost of Kyoto: Loss of $2700 per family 2.4 million fewer jobs $300B loss in real GDP Cost of goods increased Loss of opportunity to improve technology and procedures to accomplish the same goals After all that, it may not, at all, have affected global warming. It certainly doesn't address actual pollution. http://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/1997/01/warming2.pdf I get the impression that Kyoto is only the start of what is on the agenda.
Those numbers are from an advocacy group opposing Kyoto. What are the numbers if we do nothing? Higher and increasing, the longer we wait.
They far understate the effects. They're no advocacy group; their report is referenced by people on both sides of the hoax.
I'm not following your argument. If consensus is meaning less for science then what were you try to say with this post?
One of the things for me is that we appear to be trying to set permanently a moving target. The temperatures of this planet have risen and fallen over the eons. Why do we think that some setpoint in the past is the immovable target at which we should remain?
My point is consensus is meaningless. It's a political argument. Consensus that the earth is flat doesn't make it so.
Population growth tends to take care of itself as countries develop. In other words, as countries become wealthier, they have fewer children. Our future is Europe and Japan.
