How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[mike]

I have explained over and over again, why asking for a magic number to represent overpopulation is a nonsense.

The answer to the question how many is too many is not a headcount, it cant ever be a headcount because the answer to the question is when the consumption of resources is unsustainable.
There are variables both sides of that equation, its not just about the people consuming, its about the resources left for consumption.
The moment resources start to get depleted faster than they can naturally renew, while the population consuming them continues to grow, we are overpopulated.

Simplistic calculations like everyone can fit into texas are absurd. All they did was divide the global headcount by the land in texas and say look they can all fit.
It didnt factor in the land needed for workplaces for those people, i guess they could all work from home. But neither does it factor in the amount of real estate you would need to set aside for the massive resource distribution centres you would need, they have to get their food and furniture from somewhere.
The US already has a clean drinking water supply problem

According to the California Department of Resources, if more supplies aren’t found by 2020, the region will face a shortfall nearly as great as the amount consumed today. Los Angeles is a coastal desert able to support at most 1 million people on its own water; the Los Angeles basin now is the core of a megacity that spans 220 miles (350 km) from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border. The region’s population is expected to reach 41 million by 2020, up from 28 million in 2009. The population of California continues to grow by more than two million a year and is expected to reach 75 million in 2030, up from 49 million in 2009. But water shortage is likely to surface well before then.[27]

So you see its not as simple as saying the planetary population could fit in texas, The problem is not space, its resources. As the quote above clearly shows we can see the result of overpopulation on a regional scale easily enough, that this would extend to a global scale is simple enough logic.

Ive provide link after link to valid data and statistics, youve countered with La La La, i cant hear you.

Its clear reading the comments here that in the court of public opinion the evidence presented against you, outweighs the hearsay testimony youve presented in your defence.
The thread tittle is how silly is this denial, and i contend youve been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of being just that

 

[mike]

In science we don't address people, we address information.

And yet when the question of how many is too many is asked, he wants a headcount, instead of the much more relevant information that relates to the impact and sustainability of those people on the biosphere.


This graphic shows why you cant measure overpopulation by a headcount

Interactive Map: Four Ways to Look at Carbon Footprints


As ive said before 10 hills tribesmen from papua new guinea, or 20 "lost" tribesmen of south america dont have the same resource usage as 1 person living in London or Sydney.

You cant simply count the number of people to determine overpopulation, you have to factor in the lifestyle they live and thus impact of the planetary resources.

And the problem is in thouse countrys where that per person resource footprint is low, they want to live like we do in the developed west

The Global Network Footprint statistics show that, globally, we left sustainability behind during the late 1980s. Since then, increasing world affluence and populations have driven us deeper into unsustainable territory.

The carbon dioxide emissions of each country pollute the atmosphere for every other nation and the human urge to improve its affluence, or impact through Technology – no matter how well off it already is – is a driver that seems set to continue.

It follows that if affluence and technology are not able to decrease, then the only parameter left to reduce is
population. The ecological footprinting data analysed in this paper have given guidelines; a sustainable global population is around two to three billion people; for the UK, the figure is between 17 and 27 million.

Human impact on the planet has increased massively in the modern era, causing deforestation, soil erosion, increased salinity of the soil, pollution, waste disposal to landfill, desertification, declining fish stocks, biodiversity loss and climate change. The Earth can no longer support the number of people who live on it. It crossed the boundary to ecological overshoot in the 1980s: human demands on the planet now run at 25 per cent above planetary biocapacity. This 25 per cent overshoot is projected to rise to nearly 100 per cent by 2050 when humankind will need almost two Earths to support it

http://www.populationmatters.org/documents/sustainability_populations.pdf

 

[BoyintheMachine]

1. Overpopulation is a function of the number of individuals compared to the relevant resources, such as the water and essential nutrients they need to survive. It can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality rates, an increase in immigration, or an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources.

Overpopulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not just about resources, Mike. I don't know how to get you to understand that. You should be able to provide a figure of the number of humans our planet can safely hold. This would also mean that anything past that amount would indicate the Earth is overpopulated with humans.

 

[mike]

The ecological footprinting data analysed in this paper have given guidelines; a sustainable global population is around two to three billion people; for the UK, the figure is between 17 and 27 million.
http://www.populationmatters.org/documents/sustainability_populations.pdf

You see its a variable not a fixed magic number. Thats because it depends on what resources those people are using.

Less resource use, means you can have more people and still be "sustainable"
More resource use, means less people if you want to be sustainable.

Its not as simple as a magic number, a headcount.

Right now the global average is 1.51 planets, but if everyone lived like we do in the developed nations it would be 4.16

With no change in the magic number, with no change in the headcount, the degree of "overpopulation" would change simply through lifestyle and resource consumption.

Thus you cannot measure overpopulation with a headcount, it must be measure by the relative impact of however many people there are.

And yes we only have one planet, this graphic represents how many we would need if we were using these resources at the rate at which they renew.
We would need these extra planets to consume these resources at "sustainable" levels.
We dont have another planet let alone 4 more, so our current usage is unsustainable, we are running up an environmental deficit

The term Environmental Deficit is used to refer to society's relationship to the natural environment. It suggests that the pursuit of short-term benefits produces negative long-term consequences.
Environmental Deficit highlights three key sociological issues:

• the connection between environmental degradation and lifestyle choices
• that social actions often have unintended effects on the natural world
• the suggestion that environmental damage may, nonetheless, be reversible.

Environmental deficits take the form of:

• pollution
• global warming
• acid rain
• waste
• biodiversity loss

The issues surrounding the concept of environmental deficits include the identification of damaging practices and their replacement with those that can contribute to sustainable development. These issues revolve around:

• recognition of the environment as a finite resource
• society tends to involve itself in the instrumental use of nature as the pursuit of material affluence
• present levels of economic growth cannot be sustained
• that natural resources, such as rainforests, once depleted, cannot easily be replaced
• levels of biodiversity need to be sustained in order for the effective functioning of eco-systems (hence on a wide-scale, the loss of rainforests has an adverse effect on the atmosphere).
• that future generations will be the most likely sufferers of both resource depletion and environmental degradation.

The problem of environmental destruction became accentuated in 1962 with the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, this influential work exposed the fact that the widespread use of pesticides was having a devastating effect on wildlife. Although derided by 'experts' associated to the chemical industry and the press alike, Carson's book can be considered as the instigator of a public awareness of the environment that continues to this day. In 1972 two seminal reports, the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth and the Ecologist magazine's Blueprint for Survival took the debate to the global arena by illustrating the potential consequences of an expanding global population. The Limits thesis made the prediction that current levels of economic growth could not continue due to the limited amount of natural resource reserves. The team tested the hypothesis that there were no limits to economic growth by taking into account five variables:

• accelerating industrialism
• rapid population growth
• widespread malnutrition
• depletion of renewable resources
• a deteriorating environment

They concluded that 'the limits to growth' would be reached by 2100 and struck a blow to the long-standing assumption that human societies could overcome scarcity and reach affluence via unbridled technology. In short, current patterns of growth (whilst supplying short-term solutions) would lead ultimately to an environmental deficit – the consequences of which would be experienced by future generations. Such warnings concerning the global economy's affect on the natural environment have given rise to calls for a sustainable model of development. This means that environmental degradation may be reversible if society radically modifies its values, alters growth trends, and rethinks its use of technology.
Martell describes sustainable development in the following way: 'Sustainability requires technical decisions about choice of technology, energy use and forms of production. Yet it also requires restrictions on growth, resource extraction and pollution and implies radically changed social lifestyles and values, whether taken on by choice or necessity or by some combination of the two. The social lifestyles and values suitable for sustainability are something on which sociologists are eminently well-qualified to comment, since they touch on issues to do with consumption, community and economy in which sociologists have a longstanding interest.'
(Martell, Luke (1994: 47) Ecology and Society: An Introduction, Cambridge: Polity Press).

 

[BoyintheMachine]

What does the US government stand to gain from supporting these "pro-AGW" scientists? I have a fairly good idea of why an oil company might find it in their best interest to channel funds secretly to a shady group calling itself "Friends of Science".

For more on where all those billions and billions from Uncle Sam go:

But maybe that money is somehow being directed in a biased manner, distributed in a way that ensures the current consensus is supported. "Where is the Department of Solar Influence or the Institute of Natural Climate Change?" Nova asks, elsewhere claiming, "Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite."

This displays an almost incomprehensible misunderstanding of how science research works. Thereare institutes that are dedicated to studying the Sun—the Naval Research Laboratory has one, asdoes NASA. But those institutes are focused on learning about what the Sun actually does, not squeezing what we learn into some preconceived agenda. For decades, solar activity has been trending downwards, even as temperatures have continued to rise. It's not that the researchers are being induced or compelled to some sort of biased interpretation of the data. Reality just happens to have a bias.


Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done | Ars Technica

Now you are arguing for hypocrisy, that it's bad when the Oil industry only funds anti-AGW research and good when the U.S. government only funds pro-AGW research.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

The ecological footprinting data analysed in this paper have given guidelines; a sustainable global population is around two to three billion people; for the UK, the figure is between 17 and 27 million.
http://www.populationmatters.org/documents/sustainability_populations.pdf

You see its a variable not a fixed magic number. Thats because it depends on what resources those people are using.

Less resource use, means you can have more people and still be "sustainable"
More resource use, means less people if you want to be sustainable.

Its not as simple as a magic number, a headcount.

Right now the global average is 1.51 planets, but if everyone lived like we do in the developed nations it would be 4.16

With no change in the magic number, with no change in the headcount, the degree of "overpopulation" would change simply through lifestyle and resource consumption.

Thus you cannot measure overpopulation with a headcount, it must be measure by the relative impact of however many people there are.

And yes we only have one planet, this graphic represents how many we would need if we were using these resources at the rate at which they renew.
We would need these extra planets to consume these resources at "sustainable" levels.
We dont have another planet let alone 4 more, so our current usage is unsustainable, we are running up an environmental deficit

The term Environmental Deficit is used to refer to society's relationship to the natural environment. It suggests that the pursuit of short-term benefits produces negative long-term consequences.
Environmental Deficit highlights three key sociological issues:

• the connection between environmental degradation and lifestyle choices
• that social actions often have unintended effects on the natural world
• the suggestion that environmental damage may, nonetheless, be reversible.

Environmental deficits take the form of:

• pollution
• global warming
• acid rain
• waste
• biodiversity loss

The issues surrounding the concept of environmental deficits include the identification of damaging practices and their replacement with those that can contribute to sustainable development. These issues revolve around:

• recognition of the environment as a finite resource
• society tends to involve itself in the instrumental use of nature as the pursuit of material affluence
• present levels of economic growth cannot be sustained
• that natural resources, such as rainforests, once depleted, cannot easily be replaced
• levels of biodiversity need to be sustained in order for the effective functioning of eco-systems (hence on a wide-scale, the loss of rainforests has an adverse effect on the atmosphere).
• that future generations will be the most likely sufferers of both resource depletion and environmental degradation.

The problem of environmental destruction became accentuated in 1962 with the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, this influential work exposed the fact that the widespread use of pesticides was having a devastating effect on wildlife. Although derided by 'experts' associated to the chemical industry and the press alike, Carson's book can be considered as the instigator of a public awareness of the environment that continues to this day. In 1972 two seminal reports, the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth and the Ecologist magazine's Blueprint for Survival took the debate to the global arena by illustrating the potential consequences of an expanding global population. The Limits thesis made the prediction that current levels of economic growth could not continue due to the limited amount of natural resource reserves. The team tested the hypothesis that there were no limits to economic growth by taking into account five variables:

• accelerating industrialism
• rapid population growth
• widespread malnutrition
• depletion of renewable resources
• a deteriorating environment

They concluded that 'the limits to growth' would be reached by 2100 and struck a blow to the long-standing assumption that human societies could overcome scarcity and reach affluence via unbridled technology. In short, current patterns of growth (whilst supplying short-term solutions) would lead ultimately to an environmental deficit – the consequences of which would be experienced by future generations. Such warnings concerning the global economy's affect on the natural environment have given rise to calls for a sustainable model of development. This means that environmental degradation may be reversible if society radically modifies its values, alters growth trends, and rethinks its use of technology.
Martell describes sustainable development in the following way: 'Sustainability requires technical decisions about choice of technology, energy use and forms of production. Yet it also requires restrictions on growth, resource extraction and pollution and implies radically changed social lifestyles and values, whether taken on by choice or necessity or by some combination of the two. The social lifestyles and values suitable for sustainability are something on which sociologists are eminently well-qualified to comment, since they touch on issues to do with consumption, community and economy in which sociologists have a longstanding interest.'
(Martell, Luke (1994: 47) Ecology and Society: An Introduction, Cambridge: Polity Press).

Finally! Mike, finally gives a figure, 2-3 billion. Now, I'm going to check around and research it and see if it's true or if it's not.

FYI: Resources can be shipped globally. Just so you know.

 

[mike]

1. Overpopulation is a function of the number of individuals compared to the relevant resources, such as the water and essential nutrients they need to survive. It can result from an increase in births, a decline in mortality rates, an increase in immigration, or an unsustainable biome and depletion of resources.

Overpopulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not just about resources, Mike. I don't know how to get you to understand that. You should be able to provide a figure of the number of humans our planet can safely hold. This would also mean that anything past that amount would indicate the Earth is overpopulated with humans.

Are you blind ?

seriously ?

Let me cut and past from your own data

function of the number of individuals compared to the relevant resources

unsustainable biome and depletion of resources.

Do you understand the expression "function of the number" is an equational expression, that is to say it supports my claim its a variable not a fixed number ?

*The impact of humanity has been expressed in the so-called Commoner-Ehrlich Equation:
I=PxAxT. This states that impact (I) on the environment is proportional to population size (P), affluence (A), defined as the resources a population consumes and wastes, and the technology (T) a society uses

http://www.populationmatters.org/documents/sustainability_populations.pdf


Overpopulation is NOT measured as a number of people, its measured by the "impact" they have on the biosphere and its resources

THATS how you tell if your overpopulated

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Uh-Oh, Mike's wrong.

This link says that most scientist's believe the earth can safely support 10 billion people. There are currently 7 billion people now. This means the Earth is not overpopulated. Going further, the human population will peak shortly and then naturally decrease.

How Many People Can Planet Earth Support? | When Will the Human Population Start to Decline? | LiveScience

*snickers* Honestly, I don't even believe the 10 billion figure is correct either. I will need to do more research but from what I can tell this is definitely not a precise science and the figures can be wrong by incredibly wide margins.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Are you blind ?

seriously ?

Let me cut and past from your own data

function of the number of individuals compared to the relevant resources

unsustainable biome and depletion of resources.

Do you understand the expression "function of the number" is an equational expression, that is to say it supports my claim its a variable not a fixed number ?

*The impact of humanity has been expressed in the so-called Commoner-Ehrlich Equation:
I=PxAxT. This states that impact (I) on the environment is proportional to population size (P), affluence (A), defined as the resources a population consumes and wastes, and the technology (T) a society uses

http://www.populationmatters.org/documents/sustainability_populations.pdf


Overpopulation is NOT measured as a number of people, its measured by the "impact" they have on the biosphere and its resources

THATS how you tell if your overpopulated

No, Mike you are wrong. Overpopulation figures BOTH number of individuals and resources, not just resources. I've never argued here for just the number of people. I'm only trying to point out your ignoring of the number of people.

 

[mike]

Uh-Oh, Mike's wrong.

This link says that most scientist's believe the earth can safely support 10 billion people. There are currently 7 billion people now. This means the Earth is not overpopulated. Going further, the human population will peak shortly and then naturally decrease.

How Many People Can Planet Earth Support? | When Will the Human Population Start to Decline? | LiveScience

*snickers* Honestly, I don't even believe the 10 billion figure is correct either. I will need to do more research but from what I can tell this is definitely not a precise science and the figures can be wrong by incredibly wide margins.

Did you miss this bit from the article ?

"If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

That 10 billion figure only applies if everyone decreased their resource usage, stopped over fishing the oceans, stopped chopping down rainforst to graze cattle.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Did you miss this bit from the article ?

No I didn't miss that. That's his opinion. It doesn't mean he's right. And not all land is used for livestock so I'm not sure he would try to word it as such. The majority of land is unused and he doesn't take into account human technological advancements.

 

[mike]

No, Mike you are wrong. Overpopulation figures BOTH number of individuals and resources, not just resources. I've never argued here for just the number of people. I'm only trying to point out your ignoring of the number of people.

Right, which is why it cannot be expressed as a magic number headcount, and you have been arguing its just about the number of people, or you wouldnt have trotted that "they can all fit in texas" stupidity out

"Post it. Give me the magical number that once crossed we are doomed. I dare you.".... no mention of compared to resources

"The fact that you refuse to proved a figure is quite telling. If overpopulation is a problem then the people who claim it is real should be able to provide a figure to indicate how many people is too many people." again no mention of compared to resources.... just a demand for a headcount

"If overpopulation is a problem then how many people is too many people".... hmm again no mention of resources

Every single time you have indeed asked for just the number of people, a magical headcount number.

 

[Trystero]

Now you are arguing for hypocrisy, that it's bad when the Oil industry only funds anti-AGW research and good when the U.S. government only funds pro-AGW research.

Okay, so we should give equal weight to, say, a study investigating the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking funded by R.J. Reynolds as one funded by federal dollars?

 

[mike]

No I didn't miss that. That's his opinion. It doesn't mean he's right. And not all land is used for livestock so I'm not sure he would try to word it as such. The majority of land is unused and he doesn't take into account human technological advancements.

HAHAHA, so you quote this guy as proof im wrong, then say its just his opinion it doesnt mean he right....... ?????

This is getting funnier by the minute

He clearly states it can sustain 10 billion only if everyone went vego.

Anyway you cite 2 scientists in that link

I'll see your two and raise you 58 scientific academies

The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth is an international scientist consensus document discussing and demanding a halt of the population expansion. This was the first worldwide joint statement of academies of sciences, and their cooperative InterAcademy Panel on International Issues. It was signed by 58 member academies and hence ratified in 1994.


The Problem
The world is undergoing an unprecedented population expansion. Within the span of a single lifetime, world population has more than doubled to 5.5 billion and even the most optimistic scenarios of lower birth rates lead to a peak of 7.8 billion people in the middle of the next century. In the last decade, food production from both land and sea declined relative to world population growth.

The relationships between human population, economic development and natural environment are complex and not fully understood. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the threat to the ecosystem is linked to population size and resource use. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion and acid rain, loss of biodiversity, deforestation and loss of topsoil, shortages of water, food and fuel indicate how the natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits.
The developed world, containing less than a quarter of the world population, accounts for 85% of the gross world production and the majority of the mineral and fossil-fuel consumption. Both rich and poor countries add to environmental damage through industrial activity, inappropriate agricultural practices, population concentration and inadequate and inattentive environmental concern. Yet development is a legitimate expectation of less developed and transitional countries.

IAP statement on population growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Signatories ...
Academy of Sciences of Albania
Australian Academy of Science
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of Belarus
National Academy of Sciences of Bolivia
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Columbian Academy of Exact, Physical, and Natural Sciences
Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Estonian Academy of Sciences
Federation of Asian Scientific Academies and Societies
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
French Academy of Sciences
Conference of the German Academies of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Academy of Athens. Greece
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Iranian Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Royal Scientific Society, Jordan
Kazakhstan National Academy of Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences, Republic of Korea
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Malaysian Scientific Association
National Academy of Sciences, Mexico
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Mongolian Academy of Sciences
Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
Royal Nepal Academy of Science and Technology
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Science
Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Science and Technology, Philippines
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Conference of the Swiss Scientific Academies
Third World Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Science and Technology
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of London
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
National Academy of Physics, Mathematics, and Natural Sciences of Venezuela

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Okay, so we should give equal weight to, say, a study investigating the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking funded by R.J. Reynolds as one funded by federal dollars?

Yes. Because if both are only funding their chosen side then both are biased. If the US was funding scientists who both supported and opposed AGW then it would be different.

Also, I'm not sure if you remember it or not but I mentioned several times now that the U.S. government has acted to hijack science, starting with the Aids epidemic.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

HAHAHA, so you quote this guy as proof im wrong, then say its just his opinion it doesnt mean he right....... ?????

This is getting funnier by the minute

He clearly states it can sustain 10 billion only if everyone went vego.

Anyway you cite 2 scientists in that link

I'll see your two and raise you 58 scientific academies






IAP statement on population growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Signatories ...
Academy of Sciences of Albania
Australian Academy of Science
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of Belarus
National Academy of Sciences of Bolivia
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Columbian Academy of Exact, Physical, and Natural Sciences
Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Estonian Academy of Sciences
Federation of Asian Scientific Academies and Societies
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
French Academy of Sciences
Conference of the German Academies of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Academy of Athens. Greece
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Iranian Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Royal Scientific Society, Jordan
Kazakhstan National Academy of Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences, Republic of Korea
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Malaysian Scientific Association
National Academy of Sciences, Mexico
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Mongolian Academy of Sciences
Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
Royal Nepal Academy of Science and Technology
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Science
Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Science and Technology, Philippines
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Conference of the Swiss Scientific Academies
Third World Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Science and Technology
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of London
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
National Academy of Physics, Mathematics, and Natural Sciences of Venezuela

No. I didn't quote him. The article did. And the article specifically stated that most scientists believe that the earth could support 9-10 billion people.

 

[mike]

No. I didn't quote him. The article did. And the article specifically stated that most scientists believe that the earth could support 9-10 billion people.

Actaully it says many not most.........

Many scientists think Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people. [How Do You Count 7 Billion People?]
One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life" (Knopf, 2002), "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."
Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.
The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually, he explained. That's enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion U.S. omnivores, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States.

Which again proves my point its not about how many people there are its about the lifestyle they live

My link on the other hand shows that most of the worlds scientific acadamies think we are overpopulated


Between October 24 and October 27, 1993, an international "scientist's top summit" was held in New Delhi, India, with representatives from academies of sciences from all over the world. This grew out of two previous meetings, one joint meeting by the Royal Society of London and the United States National Academy of Sciences, and one international meeting organised by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The scientists discussed the environmental and social welfare problems for the world population, and found them closely linked to the population expansion.
In the year 1950, there were approximately 2.5 billion (2,500 million) humans alive in this world. By 1960, the number had reached 3 billion, and by 1975 was at 4 billion. The 5 billion mark was reached around 1987,[1] and in 1993, at the New Delhi meeting, academics estimated the population to be 5.5 billion. For some time, world food production had been able to roughly match population growth, meaning that starvation was a regional and distributional problem, rather than one based on a total shortage of food. The scientists noted that increased food production on land and on sea in the previous decade was less than the population increase over the same period. Moreover, by increased food production and otherwise, the population growth was contributing to a loss of biodiversity, deforestation and loss of topsoil, and shortages of water and fuel. The academics noted that the complex relationships between population size and various environmental effects were not fully understood, but that "there is no doubt that the threat to the ecosystem is linked to population size and resource use". They were aware of the problems with increasing greenhouse emissions and other environmental threats, and found these linked to the population growth.


Once more the key finding

The scientists noted that increased food production on land and on sea in the previous decade was less than the population increase over the same period. Moreover, by increased food production and otherwise, the population growth was contributing to a loss of biodiversity, deforestation and loss of topsoil, and shortages of water and fuel.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Actaully it says many not most.........



Which again proves my point its not about how many people there are its about the lifestyle they live

My link on the other hand shows that most of the worlds scientific acadamies think we are overpopulated


Between October 24 and October 27, 1993, an international "scientist's top summit" was held in New Delhi, India, with representatives from academies of sciences from all over the world. This grew out of two previous meetings, one joint meeting by the Royal Society of London and the United States National Academy of Sciences, and one international meeting organised by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The scientists discussed the environmental and social welfare problems for the world population, and found them closely linked to the population expansion.
In the year 1950, there were approximately 2.5 billion (2,500 million) humans alive in this world. By 1960, the number had reached 3 billion, and by 1975 was at 4 billion. The 5 billion mark was reached around 1987,[1] and in 1993, at the New Delhi meeting, academics estimated the population to be 5.5 billion. For some time, world food production had been able to roughly match population growth, meaning that starvation was a regional and distributional problem, rather than one based on a total shortage of food. The scientists noted that increased food production on land and on sea in the previous decade was less than the population increase over the same period. Moreover, by increased food production and otherwise, the population growth was contributing to a loss of biodiversity, deforestation and loss of topsoil, and shortages of water and fuel. The academics noted that the complex relationships between population size and various environmental effects were not fully understood, but that "there is no doubt that the threat to the ecosystem is linked to population size and resource use". They were aware of the problems with increasing greenhouse emissions and other environmental threats, and found these linked to the population growth.


Once more the key finding

The scientists noted that increased food production on land and on sea in the previous decade was less than the population increase over the same period. Moreover, by increased food production and otherwise, the population growth was contributing to a loss of biodiversity, deforestation and loss of topsoil, and shortages of water and fuel.

Mike,

Go back and watch those videos I posted from Donnna Lamframboise regarding her work to expose the IPCC. She found out lots of dirty secrets that they are relying on "scientists" in their early 20s and sometimes prior to them even getting their masters' yet. Not only that but they use non-peer reviewed research and employ activists among other things. Watch the videos. They're very interesting.

Also, that 97% of scientists support AGW claim comes from scientific literature, much of which was written by these early 20-something undergraduates and is not based on any poll of actual scientists.

 

[mike]

Im quoting the IAP, not the IPPC.

Not that that matters to you, since youve stated

Don't ever put faith in scientists.

, a third of them are on drugs/too young etc

Oh..... Unless those scientists support your view, then they are OK

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Im quoting the IAP, not the IPPC.

Not that that matters to you, since youve stated , a third of them are on drugs/too young etc

Oh..... Unless those scientists support your view, then they are OK

No, Mike. I'm merely pointing out that science is not based on faith.

Let's take a look at some of the alarmist's claims over the years:

1. Acid rain will destroy the world's forests and then plants and animals will all die out.

2. The world will overpopulated by the late 1970s and everyone will starve to death.

3. The world is going to freeze and be thrust into a new ice age due to global cooling.

4. The earth is going to fry and be thrust into a living hell of the greenhouse effect and global warming.

5. Man made climate change will make the earth either freeze or fry and all of it based on our CO2 levels that we produce from industrialization.


There was a slight, slight kernel of truth in all of these things but other than that none of it has come to pass. The alarmists do not have a very good history of predicting the future. I believe Nostradamus had a better track record than alarmists and fear mongers.