Why is no One Talking about Overpopulation?

[Jacpierre]

Straight-up false. Models have been accurate and predicting current trends pretty much since they first emerged in the '60s.



1> The thermodynamic effects of CO2 on the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas have been confirmed scientific fact for well over a century.
2> It doesn't "ignore" anything.
3> It's absolutely seen elsewhere; it's a big part of why Venus is so much warmer than the Earth.
4> That it's not matched in history is, unsurprisingly, because the current trend is man-made.

Here's the IPCC's WG1. Answers to pretty much any question you could have regarding the physical science behind climate change. [

Models have never predicted the future changes. Don't spread lies.

the greenhouse effect for your plants is not the same as our atmosphere. This has not been proven. It has not been replicated in any fashion, and there is not scientific test to prove it. PLease, go find me one.

It does completely ignore CO2 saturation, which is met at very low levels of CO2.

It has nothing to do with Venus. It isn't seen on mars in the slightest.

And matched in history means that surface temperatures need to track CO2 levels. We have had substantially higher CO2 level on this planet, throughout it's multi billion year life. Rising and falling surface temperatures do not track these levels.

If you want to prove it, do so, but don't create fiction.

[Unholyground]

You know that "global warming science" is computer models that aren't accurate, right? A natural process? Explain to me the correlation between more CO2, and higher temperatures, that not only hasn't matched anything throughout history, completely ignores CO2 saturation and laws of thermodynamics, and isn't seen anywhere else in the known universe.

I love posters like you, who aren't learned on this subject at all, and just parrot what your political party tells you. You are my favorite people ever.

I don't follow a political party, I follow real science and not pseudoscience which is very often getting confused for real science by people such as yourself.

[zEmini]

You mean the trend where the human population hasn't increased exponentially over the last century? That trend?

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I guess it has slowed down a tad over the last decade, but it still is rising. Over the last century? Ill call that a exponential growth.

I'm still waiting for the OP's explanation of how overpopulation is responsible for 40% of food waste per year.

Most of that waste comes from people biting off more than they can chew. If they figure out a way too send scraps and leftovers to the needy, then by all means.

[Unholyground]

Okay 12 Monkeys. What it must be like to be a crackpot like yourself. Most developed areas are in negative population growth. Go learn something. We will be fine. Also, any "solution" you have is immoral and completely against the natural rights of all humans, so seriously, fuck off.

Do some reading and learn about real studies, here is a link proving that it is already starting to happen , and this isn't a one off thing there are many other studies on it. https://www.theguardian.com/society/...of-last-resort

[Berengil]

We can create it at the same cost that the existing farmland cost. If you think we're out of usable farmland, you're just flat-out wrong. It's not like there's cities, and farms, and deserts, and nothing else.



Because every single measure for "bringing population growth under control" involves selecting people to be killed, or denying people the right to have a family. Neither is acceptable, particularly not when we're not really facing an uncontrolled population explosion.

Sure, if a plague wiped out 80% of humanity, a lot of issues would get suddenly easier to deal with. But causing that plague is comic-book-supervillain level evil.

I'm not suggesting anything so horrendous. A simple 2 child policy applied worldwide would freeze population in place, and indeed slowly bring it down over time as some people would choose to have 1 or none at all (like me, vsec at age 20 FTW).

And as for having a family being a "right", when someone's rights have a bad effect on others, that's the limit. Someone's right to swing their fists around ends where my face begins. Too many people will lead to ever-increasing global warming due to energy consumption. It will also contribute to habitat destruction as those people require living space.

I literally can't believe I'm having to tell you these things, Endus.

More people = more energy consumption = global warming

also

more people needing more living space = habitat destruction

[Jacpierre]

I don't follow a political party, I follow real science and not pseudoscience which is very often getting confused for real science by people such as yourself.

Those are just words. Show me your "real science". I won't hold my breath.

[cubby]

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I guess it has slowed down a tad over the last decade, but it still is rising. Over the last century? Ill call that a exponential growth.



Most of that waste comes from people biting off more than they can chew. If they figure out a way too send scraps and leftovers to the needy, then by all means.

Exponential is a mathematical term. You can't decide to call something that or not. It either is or it is not. And I'm also gathering that you don't know what exponential means, but are just using it as a cool sounding term to bolster your point.

What gets me is that we have real climate change problems, not fake ones that are linked to "population growth" - an apparently ambiguous term used by people who don't know what they are talking about - and by proselytizing your bs, you take away from the real conversation.

[Unholyground]

Those are just words. Show me your "real science". I won't hold my breath.

They are not just words, people like me who are scientifically literate can tell the difference between the two.

[Noxx79]

They are not just words, people like me who are scientifically literate can tell the difference between the two.

You should probably read your own signature.

[Osmeric]

They are already being built..

You talking about ITER? It's a huge money pit and has zero chance of leading to anything remotely competitive, even if the plasma physics issues are 100% solved.

[Rennadrel]

cuz you can't really do anything about it

not like it's a problem in the west either, which just makes it even weirder for us to sit around talking about how to get those poor people to stop breeding as much

It isn't nearly as much of a problem as it was in China 50 years ago and India currently. Those are the countries that are the biggest causes of overpopulation per country, while Africa has overpopulation due to a lack of education, non existent birth control and a serious lack of women's rights. I mean, there are cities in China with a larger population than all of Canada, and they occupy a significantly smaller fraction of land than we Canadians do.

[Endus]

Models have never predicted the future changes. Don't spread lies.

The claim that they are inaccurate is the lie.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

the greenhouse effect for your plants is not the same as our atmosphere. This has not been proven. It has not been replicated in any fashion, and there is not scientific test to prove it. PLease, go find me one.

Science doesn't change based on scale. And the greenhouse effect is well-understood and repeatedly observed under a wide variety of conditions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/does...fect-exist.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Seco...use-theory.htm

It does completely ignore CO2 saturation, which is met at very low levels of CO2.

Just completely incorrect.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satu...co2-effect.htm

And matched in history means that surface temperatures need to track CO2 levels. We have had substantially higher CO2 level on this planet, throughout it's multi billion year life. Rising and falling surface temperatures do not track these levels.

Yes. They do.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...use-effect.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...orrelation.htm

Literally every single talking point you're bringing up is a ludicrous bit of pseudoscience manufactured by climate change denier conspiracists. You may as well be ranting about the government's chemtrail program to manage the Bigfoot population.

[PC2]

I mean, there are cities in China with a larger population than all of Canada, and they occupy a significantly smaller fraction of land than we Canadians do.

Surface area for fitting cities is not a relatively scarce resource. Fertile farmland and fossil fuel products would be better examples of scarce resources to base population on, particularly how much is needed for everyone to have a middle class lifestyle.

[Unholyground]

You should probably read your own signature.

*snippy snip*

infracted - minor spam

[Mumba]

We can start with legalising abortion everywhere, no questions asked.

[Sir Andy]

Because peddling Nazi-scale genocide isn't a very popular idea.

[Rorixis]

Um the world population is still currently growing. It may be declining in some places, but the net is continued growth.

Yes it's growing, hence why I say there will be over 10 billion people at some point - but that is mainly because people keep dying older and older. The growth is still declining and will eventually halt naturally by developing countries. Yes, overpopulation is a problem right now - but growth in it is not, that will solve it self by developing underdeveloped countries.

Source: Hans Rosling

[Jacpierre]

The claim that they are inaccurate is the lie.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm


Science doesn't change based on scale. And the greenhouse effect is well-understood and repeatedly observed under a wide variety of conditions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/does...fect-exist.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Seco...use-theory.htm


Just completely incorrect.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satu...co2-effect.htm



Yes. They do.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...use-effect.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...orrelation.htm

Literally every single talking point you're bringing up is a ludicrous bit of pseudoscience manufactured by climate change denier conspiracists. You may as well be ranting about the government's chemtrail program to manage the Bigfoot population.

You link me a blog, run by a man who is not a scientist. A man who has been shown on more than one occasion to massively distort the truth to push his agenda.
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...cientists.html

I'm not going to waste my time refuting a idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about. I have read those articles, they are foolish. All you present me with here is opinion. Show me a study by scientists that shows a definitive correlation between CO2 and temperature. Show me any sort of recreation that proves this theory. I could link article after article showing how the climate models are NOT accurate. You provide me with skeptical science. You might as well be providing me with a Sesame Street website. Here is just one.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/sc...lobal-warming/

here is another one with a telling quote.
http://cornwallalliance.org/2016/08/...oes-it-matter/

"About halfway through his presentation, Frank concentrates on the models’ inaccuracies in predicting cloud response to changing atmospheric CO2 concentration. From the IPCC’s own reports he extracts the information that their error margin is ~1.4 Watts per square meter, which is about 114 x larger than the variable. This uncertainty propagates through the step-wise model predictions out into the future, resulting in an uncertainty spread in the year 2100 of about 14 degrees C, as illustrated in the accompanying screen shot from his lecture. This doesn’t mean that global average temperature in 2100 could be 14 degrees higher, or 14 degrees lower, than predicted. It means we simply don’t know, at all, what it will be. It’s impossible to predict."

I do not think I will change such a narrow mind as yours Endus, but if you want to prove me wrong, bring some big guns. Don't bring this pussy shit you like to drag out all the time. Global warming may be real. It may be man made. But if you are at all impressed by the "science" that has been put forth to propagate this "myth" then you are a weak minded individual. If ANYTHING ELSE in this world were put forward with o little proof, people would roll their eyes and decry 'snake oil' and yet we latch onto global warming like it's God. It really is a religion to you people.


P.S. You brought up Venus. Venus has an atmospheric mass 93 TIMES greater than Earth. NASA use's pv=nrt to estimate planetary body temperatures and guess what *SHOCKER!!!!* it's accurate. CO2 plays no part in their calculation at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, you show a meme by a "comedian" that is him providing his opinion. Wonderfully insightful.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh really because China was able to reduce their birthrate through legislation and penalties and they are the most populated country in the world. Raw evidence flies right in the face of what you believe.

China is one to two decades away from a massive decline in population, and a very large recession because of it. Don't kid yourself. Every person needs to produce 1 child just to maintain the population size. Most advanced countries are not doing this anymore. The ones that do are poor nations. This is not an issue like you think it is.

[Macaquerie]

But we cannot do that here.

Sure, in theory there are a lot of things that could be done.
But those would be illegal and our countries wouldn't do them.

Well more to the point, putting in place population control measures in Western countries would be rather pointless, since birthrates are already pretty low and population growth comes almost exclusively from immigration. What I'm sure the OP and other posters are suggesting is some scheme of forcibly imposing mass abortions, sterilization, or just straight up committing genocide on poor countries in Africa and the Middle East where most of the population growth is happening, perhaps as some sort of pre-emptive strike to wipe out people that could potentially compete with whites for resources in the future.

The really sad thing about this kind of proposal is not the callous brutality of it, since we see that kind of edginess on the internet all the time, but rather that it completely misinterprets the relationship between population growth and resource depletion. Yes, both are things that are currently happening, however there is not as much of a connection between them as people generally assume. The vast majority of resources are consumed by a relatively small proportion of the world population living in developed countries, where populations have plateaued but demand for food, energy, and consumer goods certainly has not.

[Barnabas]

Because it's nonsense.



- - - Updated - - -

Well more to the point, putting in place population control measures in Western countries would be rather pointless, since birthrates are already pretty low and population growth comes almost exclusively from immigration. What I'm sure the OP and other posters are suggesting is some scheme of forcibly imposing mass abortions, sterilization, or just straight up committing genocide on poor countries in Africa and the Middle East where most of the population growth is happening, perhaps as some sort of pre-emptive strike to wipe out people that could potentially compete with whites for resources in the future.

The really sad thing about this kind of proposal is not the callous brutality of it, since we see that kind of edginess on the internet all the time, but rather that it completely misinterprets the relationship between population growth and resource depletion. Yes, both are things that are currently happening, however there is not as much of a connection between them as people generally assume. The vast majority of resources are consumed by a relatively small proportion of the world population living in developed countries, where populations have plateaued but demand for food, energy, and consumer goods certainly has not.

That is more nonsense. Birth rates were on the decline before china implemented their one child policy. They are the most famous case and there is no evidence that type of policy works. Life expectancy increases is why the numbers are so high even though the rates of births have plummeted.

- - - Updated - - -

No one really gives a shit. He's correct. A low entry cost to technology to reduce their bills over the long term is the primary motivation not the environment. Rebates have made electric cars and solar popular not scientists. Side benefit is the environment.