rogerglewis
Apr 11, 2018 5:18 AM
Reply to GM
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/08/feeding-world-malthus-wasnt-such.html
Extreme carrying capacity estimates go far outside the broad, fourfold range bracketed by the estimates just cited. They have been defined by true believers in the antipodal camps of catastrophist and cornucopian futures. A generation ago Ehrlich (1968) wrote that “the battle to feed all humanity is over” and that “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” during the 1970s.2 Ehrlich’s global population maximum would have to be well below the 1970 total of about 3.7 billion people. In contrast, Simon (1981) maintained that food has no long-run, physi-cal limit. These extremes leave us either with the prospect of eliminating about half of humanity in order to return the worldwide count to a sup-portable level or with visions of crop harvests surpassing the mass of the planet itself.3 As Sauvy (1990[1949]: 774) noted crisply, “Lack of precision in data and in method of analysis allows shortcuts toward reaching an ob-jective predetermined by prejudice, shaped largely either by faith in progress or by conservative skepticism.”
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/02/possibilist-perspective-on-post-growth.html
Possibilist perspective on Post Growth, Sustainable Money and Sustainable Energy. Who’s Reality.
Limits to Growth is now pretty much past its sell by date
Criticism of LTG was immediate. Peter Passell and two co-authors published a 2 April 1972 article in the New York Times describing LTG as “…an empty and misleading work …. best summarized … as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out.” Passell found the study’s simulations to be simplistic, while assigning little value to the role of technological progress in solving the problems of resource depletion, pollution, and food production. They charged that all LTG simulations ended in collapse, predicted the imminent end of irreplaceable resources, and, finally, that the entire endeavor was motivated by a hidden agenda: to halt growth in its tracks.[17]
In 1973, a group of researchers at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, published Models of Doom; A Critique of The Limits to Growth. The Sussex group examined the structure and assumptions of the MIT models. They concluded that the simulations were very sensitive to a few key assumptions and suggest that the MIT assumptions were unduly pessimistic. The Sussex scientists concluded that the MIT methodology, data, and projections were faulty and do not accurately reflect reality.[18] Claiming that the Sussex critics applied “micro reasoning to macro problems”, the LTG team, in “A Response to Sussex”, described and analyzed five major areas of disagreement between themselves and the Sussex authors.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/07/fanatical-climate-evangelist-pot.html
Fanatical Climate Evangelist , Pot calling Kettle Black. Strawmen and Heated Sophistry.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/11/re-framing-war-on-carbon-carbon-surplus.html
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/04/wwiii-is-nothing-but-another-colonial.html
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/04/conclusion-that-msm-is-lie-machinemsm.html
conclusion that the MSM is a lie machine,MSM All In with Lies about everything
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/06/was-inconvienient-truth-always.html
One thing that puzzles me is why when draws the conclusion that the MSM is a lie machine, Which I agree with. Then why is it the Anthropogenic Global Warming due to the CO2 Hypothesis is somehow a Truth that the MSM is Consistently Telling? I can not reconcile that contradiction, I am curious how you do yourself?
Addicted to Distracted By Bruce Charlton Makes for compelling if Uncomfortable reading.
http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.se/
It will offend most readers but he has a very good point, I do not share his pessimism but the rest is hard to argue with.
“People and events presented by the media as Good are always, in reality, bad; and people or events presented by the media as bad are usually (but not always) Good — and when bad people or events are not presented as Good, then they are condemned as bad for the wrong reasons.
Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be presented as Good by the Mass Media; then it will invariably be the case that they also are said to be Good for the wrong reasons.
Thus, the major output of the modern International Mass Media consists of only four categories:
1. Good presented as bad
2. Bad presented as Good
(That is to say simple inversion)
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
(That is to say explanatory inversion)
These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high-impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.
Therefore those who want to free their minds from the Mass Media must first avoid as much Mass Media output as possible, and secondly develop automatic negativistic behaviour towards the Mass Media output which they cannot avoid”.
For what its worth here is my investigation of The Carbon Cycle, Climate Science and all of that.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/11/climate-change-agw-and-all-points-from.html
Climate Change .AGW and all points from Activism to Skepticism. @Wiki_Ballot #GrubStreetJournal
Climate Population and Green Fascist misanthropic Catastrophe Porn makes me think that Green are the new BrownShirts.
0
0
Reply
rogerglewis
rogerglewis
Apr 11, 2018 6:40 AM
Reply to rogerglewis
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/04/ww111-another-colonial-resource-war.html
0
0
Reply
GM
GM
Apr 11, 2018 3:17 PM
Reply to rogerglewis
There is no force greater than human stupidity and ignorance, and you once again provided further proof of that.
0
0
Reply
rogerglewis
rogerglewis
Apr 11, 2018 4:48 PM
Reply to GM
GM, Are you going to make an argument or does Ad Hominem count as a reasoned discussion in your book.
Go on give it another try, if what is presented above is so lacking in intelligence or empirical evidence you should really have very little trouble.
0
0
Reply
GM
GM
Apr 11, 2018 5:08 PM
Reply to rogerglewis
You accuse me of using an “ad hominem” argument when I was simply making an observation.
In any case, do you seriously expect me to try to correct the gigantic failure of the educational system that you represent in a comments section?
I would the real idiot if I tried to do that and if I expected it to work.
For people like you euthanasia is the only cure. Sad but true.
And they represent 98% of the population
Which is why the planet is doomed.
0
0
Reply
rogerglewis
rogerglewis
Apr 11, 2018 5:14 PM
Reply to GM
GM, It seems quite clear that you are deficient in both manners and in Arguments.
Letting your psychopathic wet dreams out in public is perhaps not the best idea, you ought to get some help with that.
Give yourself a break from all the self-hatred Life can be much better than you seem to believe.
0
0
Reply
rogerglewis
rogerglewis
Apr 12, 2018 5:34 AM
Reply to GM
https://steemit.com/dumberanddouma/@tonefreqhz/psychopathy-and-internet-discourse-dumberanddouma
Challenging the Climate Alarmist dogmas led to this outburst yesterday. I should be euthanised for my abhorrent views and represent a failure of the Education system. There is the future folks right there.
0
0
Reply
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Apr 12, 2018 11:35 AM
Reply to rogerglewis
Your denialist thesis falls at the first hurdle. Only some of the fakestream media supports the thesis of anthropogenic climate destabilisation caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The hard Right fakestream media is still, like you, fully denialist, and much of the rest actively downplays the gravity of the situation. Hardly surprising at all, as fossil fuels represent the ‘greatest material prize in history’.
We must recall that the anthropogenic climate destabilisation theory is supported by >99% of recently published climate scientists. The US Academy of Science declared it ‘settled science’, and ALL the Academies of Science and scientific societies on the planet concur. Moreover denialism becomes more than usually lunatic, even for a Rightist, when global average temperatures are rising rapidly, Arctic temperatures are now often ten to forty degrees Celsius above average, the jet-streams are increasingly deranged, montane glaciers are disappearing world-wide, Arctic summer sea ice is rapidly disappearing, Antarctic glaciers are melting and destabilising far quicker than expected, the AMOC is at its weakest for 1600 years and still rapidly weakening further, records of leaf and flower budding and opening of plants show rapid changes, the permafrost line in the northern hemisphere is rapidly heading north, megafires are raging across the Earth and I could go on all day. To deny all that takes real fanaticism, but some hard-core Rightists are still down to the task.
0
0
Reply
rogerglewis
rogerglewis
Apr 12, 2018 11:53 AM
Reply to Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga,
1.Denialism is the language of religious dogma, not science.
2. Science is based upon falsification, not consensus
3.Corporate Media is as down with AGW as it is with The Military Industrial Complex.
4. My Handy PDF which covers all sides of the question.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYXU3UHhLem1HQms/view
- The Rocket Science Journal.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20211214052444/http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/
- What happens when the general Public are presented with a critical examination of the science.
- Climate Communication Psychology, or the propaganda of the AGW Consensus.
Climate Psycology, LordLawson and the BBC Denial conspiracy. #GWPF #SkepticalMe
Settled Seance 99% of all Clairvoyants agree.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/08/more-on-eroi-letting-greens-know-score.html
0
0
Reply
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Apr 15, 2018 10:49 AM
Reply to rogerglewis
Denialism is certainly religious dogma, not science-you are living proof of that.
0
0
Reply
rogerglewis
rogerglewis
Apr 15, 2018 11:01 AM
Reply to Mulga Mumblebrain
Do try harder meanwhile Syria is being discussed, some Climate catastrophists claim the Uprising of the rebels was caused by Climate Change.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629816301822
Abstract
For proponents of the view that anthropogenic climate change will become a ‘threat multiplier’ for instability in the decades ahead, the Syrian civil war has become a recurring reference point, providing apparently compelling evidence that such conflict effects are already with us. According to this view, human-induced climatic change was a contributory factor in the extreme drought experienced within Syria prior to its civil war; this drought in turn led to large-scale migration; and this migration in turn exacerbated the socio-economic stresses that underpinned Syria’s descent into war. This article provides a systematic interrogation of these claims, and finds little merit to them
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/04/re-opinion-turning-against-maywait-to.html
0
0
Reply
rogerglewis
rogerglewis
Apr 15, 2018 11:32 AM
Reply to Mulga Mumblebrain
contrary to the
claims of its advocates, ‘threat multiplier’ discourse is neither
cautious nor rigorous, instead typically combining dystopian
speculation and exaggerated accounts of the likely impacts of
climate change (see esp. CNA Military Advisory Board, 2007),
together with periodic, if contradictory, calls for the avoidance of
over-simplification (e.g. Werrell & Femia, 2015). Given the urgency
of the climate change challenge and the contestation around it, plus
the mass media’s preference for striking, overblown stories e as is
clearly illustrated by the take-up of Kelley et al. (2015) e it is in our
view incumbent on analysts not to exaggerate climate-conflict
linkages, or to champion false but headline-friendly statistics.
Equally, given the complexities involved in analysing the socioeconomic
and political impacts of climate change e as clearly
demonstrated above e it is crucial that researchers working on
these impacts draw upon cross-disciplinary expertise, and not, as
Femia and Werrell, Gleick and Kelley and colleagues do, expound
on the causes of migrations and conflicts without even drawing on
social scientific research on the subjects. The case for international
action on climate change is strong enough without resort to
dubious evidence of its impact on the Syrian civil war.
I would recommend anyone to read the paper linked to. I personally disagree that the case for International Action is strong as regards CO2 emissions, that case and theory has been falsified. Climate Change can, of course, have devastating effects I think Bjorn Lombergs approach of adaption and prioritisation as set out in his Copenhagen consensus and Popular Book CoolIt.
0
0
Reply
Admin
Admin
Apr 12, 2018 12:00 PM
Reply to Mulga Mumblebrain
We have a lot of still open climate change threads guys – shall we try to keep this one on topic
0
0
Reply
rogerglewis
rogerglewis
Apr 12, 2018 12:08 PM
Reply to Admin
I have said all I wish, The threat of War presently is real amd the propaganda obvious, something more of a priority.
0
0
Reply
Roger
Roger
Oct 25, 2020 5:55 AM
Reply to rogerglewis
The #Contrick19 episode seems to open up these population questions.
https://www.yumpu.com/s/OWV56oUEJMibeSpf
