|
Post by tobyglyn on May 16, 2009 9:14:07 GMT
I'm with you with 2 and 3. Cardiovascular disease kills around twice as many worldwide as Cancer. AIDS as a catastrophe? IMO it has much in common with our current climate catastrophe scam. Maybe if you lived in Africa you'd see this differently. Probably not. The issue is not that people are dying, it's the question of what is killing them.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 16, 2009 12:01:28 GMT
Approximately 57,000,000 deaths, from hundreds of causes, occur every year. Yet we still manage to increase global population by approx. 79,000,000 every year. Stats are easily available from many sources (UN, US Census, etc. ), but here's a couple links www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.html www.disastercenter.com/cdc/ . So here's a question to ponder: If we could eliminate all causes of death except old age, what would be accomplished, and what would be the consequences?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 16, 2009 13:57:34 GMT
Approximately 57,000,000 deaths, from hundreds of causes, occur every year. Yet we still manage to increase global population by approx. 79,000,000 every year. Stats are easily available from many sources (UN, US Census, etc. ), but here's a couple links www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.html www.disastercenter.com/cdc/ . So here's a question to ponder: If we could eliminate all causes of death except old age, what would be accomplished, and what would be the consequences? Indeed there are different classes of catastrophy. The little ice age brought forward events that kiilled a 1/3rd of the people on the planet. The Iraq war didn't even put a dent in the Iraqi population growth, in fact the birth rate increases overshadowed the death rate increases.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 16, 2009 14:32:56 GMT
Approximately 57,000,000 deaths, from hundreds of causes, occur every year. Yet we still manage to increase global population by approx. 79,000,000 every year. Stats are easily available from many sources (UN, US Census, etc. ), but here's a couple links www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.html www.disastercenter.com/cdc/ . So here's a question to ponder: If we could eliminate all causes of death except old age, what would be accomplished, and what would be the consequences? Indeed there are different classes of catastrophy. The little ice age brought forward events that kiilled a 1/3rd of the people on the planet. The Iraq war didn't even put a dent in the Iraqi population growth, in fact the birth rate increases overshadowed the death rate increases. History shows us that the aftermath of catastrophe is an increase in birth rates within a very short time. I'm sure there are biological/psychological reasons connected with that. Species survival, in anticipation of the next event, would indicate that a greater population would ensure the survival of at least some breeding stock. I'm intentionally ignoring any moral, or quality of life issues of course.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 16, 2009 18:10:53 GMT
Indeed there are different classes of catastrophy. The little ice age brought forward events that kiilled a 1/3rd of the people on the planet. The Iraq war didn't even put a dent in the Iraqi population growth, in fact the birth rate increases overshadowed the death rate increases. History shows us that the aftermath of catastrophe is an increase in birth rates within a very short time. I'm sure there are biological/psychological reasons connected with that. Species survival, in anticipation of the next event, would indicate that a greater population would ensure the survival of at least some breeding stock. I'm intentionally ignoring any moral, or quality of life issues of course. In this case what happened was both birth rates and infant survival soared after removing SH from power. That response was actually seen in 2003 and probably came as a result of the vast humanitary aid that came to the country after getting the despot out of power. For the Iraqis the beginning of the end of their catastrophy was the invasion.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 16, 2009 18:57:01 GMT
I'll agree with that, and it's interesting to note your temporal assessment of that situation. I think it points out the difficulty folks have in even discussing what constitutes a catastrophe. But in the context of this thread - AGW, how would you answer my question, specifically (consequences, etc. )?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 16, 2009 22:51:46 GMT
I'll agree with that, and it's interesting to note your temporal assessment of that situation. I think it points out the difficulty folks have in even discussing what constitutes a catastrophe. But in the context of this thread - AGW, how would you answer my question, specifically (consequences, etc. )? The saying that the meek shall inherit the earth is almost a natural truth. Fact is its the people at the bottom of society who has the most kids. Its a natural response. I experienced it when I donned a uniform! ;D
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on May 16, 2009 23:32:41 GMT
I'll agree with that, and it's interesting to note your temporal assessment of that situation. I think it points out the difficulty folks have in even discussing what constitutes a catastrophe. But in the context of this thread - AGW, how would you answer my question, specifically (consequences, etc. )? The saying that the meek shall inherit the earth is almost a natural truth. Fact is its the people at the bottom of society who has the most kids. Its a natural response. I experienced it when I donned a uniform! ;D What branch? USMC (Ret ) myself. A long time ago. Re: the meek - I have no doubt that it would be the uncontacted tribes scattered throughout the Amazon and other remote areas, that would survive any climate change phenomena. Generally speaking, the technologically advanced societies throughout history have been the ones who succumbed to environmental challenges. How many people do you know who could survive and prosper with nothing more than their teeth and a sharp rock?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 17, 2009 5:19:37 GMT
The saying that the meek shall inherit the earth is almost a natural truth. Fact is its the people at the bottom of society who has the most kids. Its a natural response. I experienced it when I donned a uniform! ;D What branch? USMC (Ret ) myself. A long time ago. Re: the meek - I have no doubt that it would be the uncontacted tribes scattered throughout the Amazon and other remote areas, that would survive any climate change phenomena. Generally speaking, the technologically advanced societies throughout history have been the ones who succumbed to environmental challenges. How many people do you know who could survive and prosper with nothing more than their teeth and a sharp rock? USAF also a long time ago. You are right. There is much to be said for the robust life as Teddy Roosevelt termed it. Technology and the advances in society is a great thing for survival. . . .but its not as important as maintaining the values of hardwork, innovation, and self sufficiency.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on May 17, 2009 11:25:55 GMT
USMC 68-72
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 17, 2009 16:17:25 GMT
The standard to which steve holds "deniers" accountable for the crime of heresy: Christy's critics in the blogosphere assume his research is funded by the oil industry. But Christy has testified in federal court that his research is funded by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and that the only money he has ever received from corporate interests - $2,000 from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for penning a chapter of a global warming book in 2002 - he gave away to a charity, the Christian Women's Job Corps. Note that steve does not care about Al Gore's $300,000,000 "campaign" or where the money came from. No questions about motives of the Autobahn Society or other radical environmental group's mega millions pumping into politician's coffers and TV ads. $3,000,000,000 (that's billions) commitment from Richard Branson to fight global warming; no problem. Or how about T. Boones Pickens? Surely he has no financial stake in his quest to get taxpayer funding? Then of course there's bio fuel; one of if not the biggest boondoggle in U.S. history. What is Obama's solution? Pump more money down the rat hole and drive food prices through the roof. Please also make note of Hansen's inability to counter Christy's testimony when under oath. www.mma-web.org/UserFiles/File/ChristyJR_MS_081002.pdf“Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Christy estimated that implementing the regulations across the entire United States would reduce global temperature by about 1/100th (.01) of a degree by 2100. Hansen did not contradict that testimony.”
There's a reason why Hansen et al avoid public debate with the likes of John Christy and Roy Spencer.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 18, 2009 2:27:11 GMT
The reason Mr. Hansen avoids debate with knowledgeable scientists is that he knows his models are wrong, but also, if he is debated and he loses, his funding just dried up.
Ya think he doesn't have a vested interest?
If you think he is as pure as the "driven snow"....I have a bridge that I want to sell you. I am sure you would buy it sight unseen...and for a very reasonable price.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 18, 2009 2:41:12 GMT
The reason Mr. Hansen avoids debate with knowledgeable scientists is that he knows his models are wrong, but also, if he is debated and he loses, his funding just dried up. Ya think he doesn't have a vested interest? If you think he is as pure as the "driven snow"....I have a bridge that I want to sell you. I am sure you would buy it sight unseen...and for a very reasonable price. John Christy getting $2000 for writing a chapter in a book, then donating to charity = big oil shill James Hansen receiving $250,000 first from a politician and untold thousands from George Soros = good investment to protect earth
|
|
|
Post by annav on May 18, 2009 6:57:51 GMT
Steve said: It's common knowledge, and I've seen Christy's colleague Roy Spencer own up to it on TV. Here's an example which resolved one of the errors that was due to the wrong sign being applied to a correction. Science 2 September 2005: Vol. 309. no. 5740, pp. 1548 - 1551 DOI: 10.1126/science.1114772 The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz Corrections are applied and wherever errors are discovered they are acknowledged and published, in the anti AGW studies. In AGW temperature studies, vis GISS, there is extensive debunking of the temperatures used in www.surfacestations.org/where over 70% of land stations in the US have been audited by volunteers, and where only a small percentage have acceptable errors ( count the blue and green on the map) and very many are badly located. The whole grid generates an artificial heating effect and I am not holding my breath that GISS will correct its numbers gracefully. It will be pulled screaming and kicking. And no matter the satellite corrections, the tropical troposphere is still not heating up at twice the rate of the surface as the GCM models require.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 18, 2009 9:05:04 GMT
The standard to which steve holds "deniers" accountable for the crime of heresy: Christy's critics in the blogosphere assume his research is funded by the oil industry. But Christy has testified in federal court that his research is funded by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and that the only money he has ever received from corporate interests - $2,000 from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for penning a chapter of a global warming book in 2002 - he gave away to a charity, the Christian Women's Job Corps. Note that steve does not care about Al Gore's $300,000,000 "campaign" or where the money came from. Magellan, as usual you read what you want into what I say. What I actually said was that Christy's critics do NOT assume that his research is funded by the oil industry as a cursory internet search will show, and the journo has written that purely to heighten Christy's "victim" status.
|
|