[MrWild]

Easy. China. One child per family and that includes forced abortion.

[307startup]

Soylent Green IS people!

Reduce, reuse, recycle...your neighbor. This population control angle is ridiculous.

Do the new Knights of Columbu$ wear green, as they gallavant about on their new Cru$ade? As with all religions of old, it is about control, and the ability to exert it. What government/religious body wouldn't want the taxpayer/member to finance their own hunt and execution?

Anybody who buys into the age-old story of calamity & doom, and ride herd with the power-mongers for whatever reason, be it the popularity angle, or simply their personal lack of vertebrae, are the parasites feeding...NOT the citizen whose forebearers learned to farm the land, make tools and create technology out of nothing.

The only effective population control that I would consider, that would actually make a difference, is the control of the population in any Government and its agencies. Like deformed parasites suckling at the thriving beast, eventually rendering it ill and wasted, they derive sole benefit of such an arrangement...even to the very last, when they lose their own lives from such unabashed greed, as they strangle the very life-force of those that made their own pointless lives possible. I will not be food or fodder for such a despicable creature as this, and the ilk who hold it high as an example of right in our world.

[fizzissist]

Easy. China. One child per family and that includes forced abortion.

Wow. You musta read (Yes, we know about China's mandate), which immediately followed my question. Pretty observant.

Now, what countries OTHER than China?

[TomB]

Several responders have commented about my statement on population growth. I did not provide backup because I thought it was common knowledge that native birth rates in Japan, China, S. Africa, Russia, ECU, US, Canada and numerous small countries were too low to sustain the population. Population numbers are always a bit more complicated at the detailed level than they are in summary. Growth numbers (see http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/pe...on-growth-rate for lots of detail) typically represent the difference in birth and death rates plus the effects of immigration. A country whose death rate exceeds its birth rate can have population growth if many people immigrate to the country. In my note I carefully allowed for that distinction if you recognize that much of the west’s population growth is really a side effect of uncontrolled population growth in undeveloped countries.

For a county like the US that has a large immigrant inflow a growth rate of less than about 1.5% indicates that birth rate is less that death rate. That threshold also depends upon the percentage of child-bearing age women compared with the average population age. For example, Japan has little or no immigration gain but the average age of the population is old and child bearing women could have more than two children and still not sustain the population. In a country that has two distinct ethnic groups it is often the case that one group will have a high birth rate while the other group has a low birth rate. Whether the average leads to a sustained population or not cannot be determined without more data than the reference provides. (Israel is a good example; Jewish birthrates are low while citizen Palestinian birthrates are high. Does that mean Israel is developing in the western model or changing to an Islamic-like model?). The difference in native US birth rates and US immigrant birthrates is equally striking.

I claim no expertise on this topic and in making my comment this morning I was trying to make the point that population control is normally much more about generational evolution than it is about killing currently living individuals. (Obviously excluding a few genocide orientated wars.) Even though the draconian China policy dictates to individuals most population control discussions focus on individual choice and certainly don’t fly in the face of individual liberty. I’ve never heard of any rule in Germany that stopped a woman from having 12 kids even if the German average is 1.41 children born per woman. It is a valid topic that can be discussed without immediately disparaging any individual that brings it up. It is a topic that contributes to total energy usage. Whether current population levels or projected populations are permanently viable is in itself an interesting question.

Tom

[TomB]

Fizzissist says “Tom also says: " Remember that in the late 20th century we had continual accurate temperature measurements..."


Really. Tom really hasn't been paying attention to the whole temp measurement discussion in the scientific circles. Under the heading of REALLY needs to do some homework.”

I think you need to read the statement in the context I was making it. In the late 20th century there was a thermometer hung on every building. I’m fully aware that one can argue about the validity of some of the numbers, do they reflect the ocean temperature, are they being influenced by urban heating, etc. Those discussing may be very important to analyzing if all the current numbers indicate global warming. But that is not what I was analyzing. I had looked at the IPCC’s famous ‘hockey stick’ chart and mentally shrunk it down to see if it fit on the chart Marris provided (I fully realize that it is Bob Carters chart and I’ve listened to his lectures on the topic. He is not a global warming alarmist and his measurements are unquestionably reliable.) It looked like the ‘hockey stick’ fit the two tic marks that covered the 18 and 19 hundreds. It also looked like it fit the two tic marks that covered the 8 and 9 hundreds and the two tic marks for 2 and 1 hundred BC. As Marris’ chart suggests each of those other periods were the end of a global warming period so it seemed very possible that the IPCC ‘hockey stick’ data also points to the end of a global warming period. That all by itself would seem to discredit the “everybody that thinks agrees man-made CO2 is causing the warming”, but I wanted to look one step deeper.

I considered not the running average but the individual data peaks i.e. the light line. There are two big peaks in the late 20th century. They are the largest peaks shown in the past 3000 years. I had looked at Carter’s data earlier and if those peaks relate to global warming then it’s fair to ask are they statically significant. That means do they exceed a 3 sigma type test. When a statistical test is done with evenly spaced measurements one simply calculates sigma and makes the comparison. But when sampling is not regular then the test must also address the likelihood that old sparse sampling captured the full range of prior events. My comment which seemed to get you excited was in that context. It did not say modern measurements indicate global warming. It said that two ‘outliers’ were probably not statically significant because we measure everything today so we will always see the big spikes but we did not measure each year individually either 1000 or 2000 years ago. That we did see a few similar peaks with sparse historical sampling was reasonable evidence to me that the recent spikes were normal variation.

I just don’t agree with your bold statement that I need to really do more homework. In fact I would heartily suggest that you read things more carefully before you fire from the hip. These forum notes are not scientific papers, much background must be left out because everything would be too long to read. The post I make was clearly centrist. You should recognize that I am seeing and presenting more support for drastic naturally driven global cooling than I am supporting warming. Also recognize that drastic cooling will be a very hard pill for an overpopulated earth to swallow. Cooling requires more energy use per person than does warming. Cooling also reduces the food supply. Just think about those implications.

I on the other hand think cooling is good, I own part of a ski resort. But since this is the time of year that I have to get ready to open I will end this discussion with no further responses.

Tom

[Mariss Freimanis]

Breaking News:

Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – thousands of files released

I downloaded the FOI2009.zip file which is all over the internet this evening, all 168 megabytes unpacked, and it's breathtaking. The emails alone span from 2002 to Nov 12, 2009. Excerpt:

--------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
------------------------------------------------------------

It is unconcealed fraud of massive proportions to fake the existence of global warming. The above discusses how to make data showing temperature declines "go away". It is just unbelievable reading. Bernie Madoff would be proud of these AWG climate scientists.

Mariss

[rokag3]

Breaking News:

Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – thousands of files released

I downloaded the FOI2009.zip file which is all over the internet this evening, all 168 megabytes unpacked, and it's breathtaking. The emails alone span from 2002 to Nov 12, 2009. Excerpt:

Thank you Mariss,
It's not a surprise but this is great, so far big silence on the Media (LOL) how long will they be able to keep this very "LOUD" silence?

[rokag3]

more than 1000 coments on the information reported by Mariss it's HUUUUUGE

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/1...ed/#more-12937

[40fordcoupe]

Here is a very interesting article from the UK Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...of-Europe.html

The writer paraphrases the words of Jesus with the following.
"As Jesus himself put it, "The wind bloweth where it listeth… but thou canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth." So thou canst not rely on it to put thy light on when thou flickest the switch."

I hope that none will take offense at the the comment, IMHO the writer makes his point very well.

[fizzissist]

The implications of this revelation of AGW emails is reaching worldwide in its scope.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...googlenews_wsj

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...limate.html?hp

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...ow/5256461.cms

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...fyeMgD9C441LG0 (AP)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ming-data.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...pid=sec-nation

.......don't bother trying to access Steve McIntyre's site...it's hammered.

What's most significant about this is not whether the emails were obtained legally or not, but the methodology used to provide the IPCC with the end result. Not even the dissonance between opposing scientists, which goes on in all of the science's disciplines, but the intent of suppressing, or massaging data to support an agenda. That's the real crime.

For Ben Santer to threaten to beat up Patrick Michaels? That's pure evidence of Santer's lack of solid science. A look at Santer's video meant to sway children shows how shallow it is.

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”
--Ernest Rutherford

[martinw]

The CRU news is getting quite a lot of attention in the UK, but not in the MSM.

Here is a link that comments on the leaked info.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...ttings-33.html

If even a bit of it is true, it looks like dynamite.

Enjoy.

Martin

[fizzissist]

Martin,
The AGW'ers are up in arms...and have admitted to the authenticity. Now they're backpeddling like crazy!

Like the word "hide" was a....uh...poor choice of words? ROFLMAO!!!

Loved the Bishop Hill site.

[martinw]

[QUOTE=fizzissist;693866
Loved the Bishop Hill site.[/QUOTE]

Heh, heh! Likewise.

I am curious if the story will be reported in the media though. No matter, the cat is out of the bag, perhaps.

Best wishes,

Martin

[fizzissist]

I am curious if the story will be reported in the media though. No matter, the cat is out of the bag, perhaps.

6 links in my earlier post oughta do it....

[rokag3]

OK we can speak about CFC and passive smoking obesity healthism etc...
they use the same strategy (goebelomachiavelism)

[fizzissist]

Dr. Timothy Ball, retired from the University of Winnipeg, with a PhD in climatology, interviewed by Corbett....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac"]YouTube- Climate Change Bombshell: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails[/ame]

You could make a killing now in the selling of back-peddles. Mikey Mann and Phil Jones cheated, now they've been caught with their pants down. Ball used machine guns, another target of the "Team" commented that this isn't a smoking gun, it's a mushroom cloud.

[Mariss Freimanis]

fizzissist,

Thank you for that. It is the most reasoned response to the events of the last few days. Dr. Tim Ball summarizes these events in his interview in an absolutely dispassionate way.

I'm less dispassionate:

What is going to be done now? Who is going to clean this mess up?

I am just a layman. What has become clear to me is there is a cabal that has hijacked climate research. The hijackers are a group of 42 "scientists" and computer modellers that publish together and peer-review each other's articles. They took control of the process through an insesctious peer review process to designed to exclude all divergent views. The method used was to subvert the peer review process, take control of the Hadley Center and the IPCC.

Reading from the emails, at best they are nasty, out of control adolescents or at worst they are ideologs of the new environmentalist religion. Either way they don't belong doing any science.

These characters aren't scientists. Not by a long shot; they should be wearing clerical garb and would fit right in with the 1500AD Court of Star of Chamber.

Mariss

[dynosor]

It is the most reasoned response to the events of the last few days.

Don't expect policy makers to drop the call for action against global warming just because of a few inconvenient facts. I predict that if they eventually stop using “climate change” as the reason they need to double our energy bills, they will snap over to the “cost of energy independence".

[altair]

This revelation on the conspiracy is only the tip of the iceberg !
Most other areas of science and technology are also "controlled".
For example, we should already have benefited from free energy since the sixties at least, but that technology has always been heavily suppressed, and countless inventors have been murdered just to prevent humanity from benefitting.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Suppression
This whole subject is a bit off-topic here, but nevertheless is part of the GLOBAL conspiracy.

Also highly recommended reading, the books by David Icke.

I am also pretty sure this whole mess about the GW conspiracy will again be quickly suppressed by the powers in charge, and the perpetrators will not be punished. Just watch.

[40fordcoupe]

The book State of Fear published in 2005 authored by Michael Crichton was a fictionalized version of how the global warming advocates misrepresent the facts. The book was heavy with foot notes backing up his story. None the less it was immediately attacked by the media and various environmental groups. Shortly after that it fell off the radar. IMHO the same thing will happen with these data files. The lame stream media with do what they can to discredit anything that will damage the cause and some new sensational event will be used to distract the population. Maybe UFO's will be seen over the Whitehouse, who knows?

BTW Computer models are just another way to tell a lie. A model can easily be rigged to give whatever results the writer wants.