fate

Hmm, is there a causation? I find your claims dubious

They aren't my claims.

You can find the data at Gapminder.org if you don't want to spend 5 minutes learning something and watch Roslings presentation. (Its pretty funny though and worth the time.)
click on gapminderqworld.

But the facts presented by Roslings pretty clearly indicate a correlation between reduced family size and improved life span and economic circumstance. In the Third World in particular he claims its causal.
And what you are presenting isn't a refutation of the data or Rosling's claims at all. What they demonstrate is that Europe's pension plans and governments weren't very good about predicting future population trends and planning for them.
On the other hand the population trends have been very positive for almost all third world countries . Because as family sizes decreased, their per capita GDP increased, life spans increased and their economies grew....
Third world countries also don't represent, on a per capita basis, the great threat to the contribution of CO2.... that would be us in the West. (Particularly Canada BTW)

West Antarctica is warming almost twice as fast as previously believed, adding to worries of a thaw that would add to sea level rise from San Francisco to Shanghai, a study showed on Sunday.

Annual average temperatures at the Byrd research station in West Antarctica had risen 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.3F) since the 1950s, one of the fastest gains on the planet and three times the global average in a changing climate, it said

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ ... 9S20121223

What was that about Antartica again?

Repetition is a specialty of yours.

Not compelling.

Doctor Fate wrote:Repetition is a specialty of yours.

He was repeating new research that came out that day?

That's impressive.

Not compelling.

Why not. What problem do you have with the Byrd station readings? Do you dispute ice shelf breakups having happened recently?

Or is it just that you instinctively reject evidence for climate change? That's no less irrational than instinctively rejecting criticism by sceptics.

Wow, Byrd had an increase... that's like making predictions for the continent of North America based on the weather in Chicago. If Chicago got warmer (or colder, or stayed the same) does that mean the entire continent will do the same? Byrd is in an area that HAS warmed, a small section is indeed warming while an even larger section is cooling (due to a loss of ozone) so if you ask me, the environmentalists should call for the ban of CFC's to be ended, we need to widen that ozone hole in order to stave off this warming trend!!! Where I live it was very mild last week, this week it's very cold, seems to happen every year, I'm not very worried by it and if it does warm, hey, more crops can be grown!? Bring it on!

GMTom wrote:Wow, Byrd had an increase... that's like making predictions for the continent of North America based on the weather in Chicago. If Chicago got warmer (or colder, or stayed the same) does that mean the entire continent will do the same?

I'm going to make a guess that you didn't actually read the full link, or the original report it's based on.

Byrd is in an area that HAS warmed, a small section is indeed warming while an even larger section is cooling (due to a loss of ozone) so if you ask me, the environmentalists should call for the ban of CFC's to be ended, we need to widen that ozone hole in order to stave off this warming trend!!!

The report does not just show that temperatures at Byrd station have risen by over 2 degrees Celcius. It also shows that across West Antarctica the melt rate has increased. Western Antarctica, up to the Antarctic Peninsular is indeed a much larger area than the Byrd station.

So, to use your analogy, it's like saying that the Chicago temperatures have increased, and that effects related to temperature increases have been observed across the Mid-Western US and Southern Canada.

Where I live it was very mild last week, this week it's very cold, seems to happen every year, I'm not very worried by it and if it does warm, hey, more crops can be grown!? Bring it on!

Of course someone living in the snowbelt would like warmer weather. Your solipsism is noted. Your assumption that the only outcome from warming would be improved crop yields is based on what, exactly?

As for your asinine reference to this week and last week's weather in your corner of the world - Guess what? Weather is not the same as climate. But we've been through this before, and you never seem to get it.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Repetition is a specialty of yours.

He was repeating new research that came out that day?

That's impressive.

No, what's impressive is your capacity to obsess over what I don't say.

I was referring to the three previous posts rickyp made, which would be obvious were you not so bent on scoring points at my expense.

He believes wind is a "resource." He justifies that by talking about the grid.

It would be the first "resource" in history that you cannot gather, grow, or produce.

To shift the debate, he moves to the idea that smaller families make families wealthier. That is a dubious claim. First, it supposes that a large family cannot work its way to prosperity. Many large families do. Second, the impact of shrinking birth rates is not a small one--nor is it a positive one. When a nation goes under replacement numbers, it either declines in population (which leads to a growing number of retired folks living off a shrinking working class) or it leads to a massive influx of immigrants, which can lead to other issues.

There are holes in the latest rounds of reports from the IPCC. However, I refuse to argue about it. Many here would gladly ice fish for the rest of their lives if they thought it would save the planet. There is no way you all would believe the IPCC if they completely reversed course. It has become a cardinal doctrine--MAN is destroying the planet! The only solutions: radical population reduction and radical changes in energy, leading to massive poverty.

Yes, dear danivon, I know, you've not said any of those things.

However, that is the mentality of rickyp and those who believe such things.

fate

To shift the debate, he moves to the idea that smaller families make families wealthier. That is a dubious claim. First, it supposes that a large family cannot work its way to prosperity. Many large families do. Second, the impact of shrinking birth rates is not a small one--nor is it a positive one. When a nation goes under replacement numbers, it either declines in population (which leads to a growing number of retired folks living off a shrinking working class) or it leads to a massive influx of immigrants, which can lead to other issues.

Are you saying that all of the data presented by Rosling is wrong? Based on what?
He doesn't say that large families can't work themselves to prosperity,
What he's saying is that there is a relationship between countries having families that are on average smaller, and the increased prosperity of the people in that country.
If you have evidence that disputes this, present it...
The fact that when population begin to have birth rates below replacement level, does put pressure on pension plans and public services ...but it doesn't effect the relative prosperity of the nation. Japan has been below replacement rate for some time and yet they remain prosperous.

Tom, I find it interesting that you brought in the fact that ice had been thickening in the Antarctic as evidence that global arming was exaggerated. And yet, evidence from the same region about warming and ice melt ...you discount as not relevant because its one small part of the world...
There's simply too much data coming in, constantly, confirming warming and confirming some of the predicted effects of warming to discount. WSJ and other more right wing media jump on every single report that seems to contradict warming ....but the constant reports that provide evidence that confirms warming they ignore,

Doctor Fate wrote:He believes wind is a "resource." He justifies that by talking about the grid.

It would be the first "resource" in history that you cannot gather, grow, or produce.

Not sure you are correct on definitions. A 'resource' is not 'produced'. Products are produced, usually from 'resources'.

Besides, wind energy is a resource, just like any other kind of energy. That energy can be 'gathered'. As wind is effectively just 'energy' (as it is kinetic energy, and all wind is is air moving around), it's moot. Solar energy is also a resource. Plants have been using it for billions of years.

To shift the debate, he moves to the idea that smaller families make families wealthier. That is a dubious claim.

Although he does cite research showing a correlation.

First, it supposes that a large family cannot work its way to prosperity. Many large families do.

No it doesn't. Men being stronger than women does not mean you can't have female wrestlers who could beat the average man. It just means it's less likely that a given woman can beat a given man, and that the best woman can't beat the best man. Similarly, just because a large family could prosper does not disprove that smaller families are more prosperous on average. He's talking about whole societies rather than individual cases.

Second, the impact of shrinking birth rates is not a small one--nor is it a positive one. When a nation goes under replacement numbers, it either declines in population (which leads to a growing number of retired folks living off a shrinking working class) or it leads to a massive influx of immigrants, which can lead to other issues.

Are populations declining in these countries, or just not increasing as fast? Do immigrants become a solution to the 'problem' of a low birth rate, or are they actually a response to greater prosperity - people from poor areas (with coincidentally larger populations and excess people compared to work) attracted to rich ones.

The 'massive influx of immigrants' that the USA experienced in the 19th Century didn't lead to less wealth, did it? By the end of the century, the US had become the richest and most productive nation on earth. Waves of immigration - Anglo, Scots, Irish, German, Scandinavian, Italian, Chinese.. these helped build your nation.

There are holes in the latest rounds of reports from the IPCC. However, I refuse to argue about it.

Coulda fooled me. Although it does seem you are not prepared to give your own evidence, in favour of just trying to make ricky look dumb.

Many here would gladly ice fish for the rest of their lives if they thought it would save the planet.

pointless and baseless.

There is no way you all would believe the IPCC if they completely reversed course. It has become a cardinal doctrine--MAN is destroying the planet! The only solutions: radical population reduction and radical changes in energy, leading to massive poverty.

Why is it only 'radical' when you don't like it? The world population is increasing, not decreasing. As life expectancy increases, even with a lower (less than "replacement") birth rate, the falling annual death rate means increased people.

Increased energy use per person, especially in the context of a growing population, is going to be unsustainable - even if you discount environmental effects. The harnessing and distribution of that energy is going to become harder, driving up costs. Like any unsustainable bubble (cf Housing in 2006-8, web in 2000-1) the more it expands the greater the shock when it collapses.

Besides, it's not like we don't already have massive global poverty. The effect of climate change may itself be to exacerbate that poverty.

Yes, dear danivon, I know, you've not said any of those things.

However, that is the mentality of rickyp and those who believe such things.

Sez you. Perhaps we could move on from your preconceptions of their motives and back to the evidence? After all, it's not just ideology and politics for you, is it? So where is your evidence?

Or maybe "I refuse to argue about it" is your fallback.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:He believes wind is a "resource." He justifies that by talking about the grid.

It would be the first "resource" in history that you cannot gather, grow, or produce.

Not sure you are correct on definitions. A 'resource' is not 'produced'. Products are produced, usually from 'resources'.

I understood that.

However, at least one could argue that some materials that are refined (thus "products") are resources and that's what I was thinking of.

Wind . . . not.

Besides, wind energy is a resource, just like any other kind of energy. That energy can be 'gathered'. As wind is effectively just 'energy' (as it is kinetic energy, and all wind is is air moving around), it's moot. Solar energy is also a resource. Plants have been using it for billions of years.

Fine. Make it a resource.

It is a resource everyone has access to.

It is also a resource that is a money-loser. That is what rickyp does not want to address. If it made money, then guess what? The market would jump on it.

Instead, the government tries to puff it up and it . . . doesn't work.

rickyp wrote:Are you saying that all of the data presented by Rosling is wrong? Based on what?
He doesn't say that large families can't work themselves to prosperity,

Newsflash: it has nothing to do with windmills. It has little to do with climate change.

What he's saying is that there is a relationship between countries having families that are on average smaller, and the increased prosperity of the people in that country.

This is a farce.

If you have evidence that disputes this, present it...

Social Security.

Because it is getting close to a 2:1 ratio of workers to recipients, it's going to suffer fiscal difficulties. If we had the same ratio as when the program began, it would not be a problem.

On the face of it, if you keep the same GDP and lower the populace, you clearly have more wealth per family available. However, that ignores the realities of labor and the needs of the socialist state for more revenue.

The fact that when population begin to have birth rates below replacement level, does put pressure on pension plans and public services ...but it doesn't effect the relative prosperity of the nation. Japan has been below replacement rate for some time and yet they remain prosperous.

Do they? One writer notes:

Japan is facing such swift demographic collapse, Eberstadt’s essay suggests, because its culture combines liberalism and traditionalism in particularly disastrous ways. On the one hand, the old sexual culture, oriented around arranged marriage and family obligation, has largely collapsed. Japan is one of the world’s least religious nations, the marriage rate has plunged and the divorce rate is higher than in Northern Europe.

Yet the traditional stigma around out-of-wedlock childbearing endures, which means that unmarried Japanese are more likely to embrace “voluntary childlessness” than the unwed parenting that’s becoming an American norm. And the traditional Japanese suspicion of immigration (another possible source for demographic vitality) has endured into the 21st century as well. Eberstadt notes that “in 2009 Japan naturalized barely a third as many new citizens as Switzerland, a country with a population only 6 percent the size of Japan’s and a reputation of its own for standoffishness.”

These trends are forging a society that sometimes evokes the infertile Britain in James’s dystopia. Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world, and there were rashes of Internet-enabled group suicides in the last decade. Rental “relatives” are available for sparsely attended wedding parties; so-called “babyloids” — furry dolls that mimic infant sounds — are being developed for lonely seniors; and Japanese researchers are at the forefront of efforts to build robots that resemble human babies. The younger generation includes millions of so-called “parasite singles” who still live with (and off) their parents, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of the “hikikomori” — “young adults,” Eberstadt writes, “who shut themselves off almost entirely by retreating into a friendless life of video games, the Internet and manga (comics) in their parents’ home.

I think it is too early to conclude that reducing a population is a "good thing."

China and Japan may well be our canaries. Let's see how far the coal mine they get.

Much of Europe has similar problems with declining birth rates, they counter this with larger and larger immigration numbers that in turn lead to a whole host of societal problems. But why worry about that? the warming is going to swallow them up in the rising oceans anyways?

My Orthodox Christian friends celebrate Christmas on January 7th due to the Julian calender, might be a good way to get more snow on Christmas as practical way to deal with Climate Change.

Neal Anderth wrote:My Orthodox Christian friends celebrate Christmas on January 7th due to the Julian calender, might be a good way to get more snow on Christmas as practical way to deal with Climate Change.

Or, you could move to the "cold belt." Arkansas had plenty--no, not "Alaska," Arkansas.

It's no wonder conservatives favor global warming: NYC, Boston, and much of the west coast will be submerged in water. That will change the electoral dynamics and make the US far more "red."

GMTom wrote:Much of Europe has similar problems with declining birth rates, they counter this with larger and larger immigration numbers that in turn lead to a whole host of societal problems.

Actually, much of Europe has increasing birth rates at the moment. In the UK its gone up from 1.7 births per woman to over 2 in the past couple of decades.

And of course, you and DF both seem to be arguing that immigration has been a 'pull' thing, with countries making it policy to seek immigrants. What actually happens is that the economy creates a demand and that people come seeking work and money.

Immigration can cause social problems. But so can any change. So can enforced homogeneity. It can also be a great boon, with new people and new ideas, with a mixing of communities creating innovation.

But why worry about that? the warming is going to swallow them up in the rising oceans anyways?

And of course it's the other side that indulge in such claptrap, right?

Doctor Fate wrote:It's no wonder conservatives favor global warming: NYC, Boston, and much of the west coast will be submerged in water. That will change the electoral dynamics and make the US far more "red."

I think it likely they'd migrate inland, making those 'red' states less red. Unless you are wishing for millions to drown, the big hearted guy you are.