The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[Tobias]

deficit vs debt, dax

[sys]

You volunteering to start the decline, sys?

i'm doing my part.  god willing, i'll continue.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

War on science continues

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html

[sonofdaxjones]

War on science continues

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html

Many warmist propagandist draconian economy killers have written the impact of the sun entirely out of consideration.   Just as they have repeatedly manipulated historical temp data and written some fairly recent mini-ice ages out of climatic/geological time altogether. 

[Ptolemy]

there are too many people in the world, i think everyone can agree on that.

No we cannot. Offer some measure of proof of that claim please.

Allow me to retort in advance - you can take the entire current population of the world and relocate them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is right now in New York City.

We are not overpopulated.

[Rage Against the McKee]

there are too many people in the world, i think everyone can agree on that.

No we cannot. Offer some measure of proof of that claim please.

Allow me to retort in advance - you can take the entire current population of the world and relocate them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is right now in New York City.

We are not overpopulated.

That is horrible reasoning.

[sys]

there are too many people in the world, i think everyone can agree on that.

No we cannot. Offer some measure of proof of that claim please.

Allow me to retort in advance - you can take the entire current population of the world and relocate them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is right now in New York City.

We are not overpopulated.

that's not a retort, precisely.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

there are too many people in the world, i think everyone can agree on that.

No we cannot. Offer some measure of proof of that claim please.

Allow me to retort in advance - you can take the entire current population of the world and relocate them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is right now in New York City.

We are not overpopulated.

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

[Ptolemy]

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

[Rage Against the McKee]

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

[steve dave]

Allow me to retort in advance - you can take the entire current population of the world and relocate them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is right now in New York City.

lol

[steve dave]

sys, if we stacked people a hundred million high like on huge people pallets the entire population of the earth could fit into like a walmart (not vertically). so I think you can see we don't actually have a population problem.

[michigancat]

I think Ptolemy forgot to carry a 1 or something on his landfill calculation.

[Unruly]

Get mocat in here

[sys]

i mean i agree with the part about how we can cram more humans onto the earth without everyone immediately dying.

[sonofdaxjones]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/little_support_for_punishing_global_warming_foes

Phew . . . "only" 27% of Dems surveyed favor prosecution, what a relief.

[Emo EMAW]

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?

[Rage Against the McKee]

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?

I guess it depends on how you define "overpopulated". We aren't currently overpopulated in the sense that people aren't dying off left and right, but we are overpopulated in the sense that our current population can't be sustained without significant technological advances.

[Emo EMAW]

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?

I guess it depends on how you define "overpopulated". We aren't currently overpopulated in the sense that people aren't dying off left and right, but we are overpopulated in the sense that our current population can't be sustained without significant technological advances.

For how long must this population be sustained for it to achieve sustainability?

[Rage Against the McKee]

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?

I guess it depends on how you define "overpopulated". We aren't currently overpopulated in the sense that people aren't dying off left and right, but we are overpopulated in the sense that our current population can't be sustained without significant technological advances.

For how long must this population be sustained for it to achieve sustainability?

The foreseeable future. When you rely on resources that are becoming less available, like fossil fuels and water, you are not sustainable.

[sys]

water availability is just a matter of energy.

[Emo EMAW]

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?

I guess it depends on how you define "overpopulated". We aren't currently overpopulated in the sense that people aren't dying off left and right, but we are overpopulated in the sense that our current population can't be sustained without significant technological advances.

For how long must this population be sustained for it to achieve sustainability?

The foreseeable future. When you rely on resources that are becoming less available, like fossil fuels and water, you are not sustainable.

Some people would argue that technological advancements in fossil fuels are advancing faster than we can consume fossil fuels.  The peak oil theory is complete crap canned, for example.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?

I guess it depends on how you define "overpopulated". We aren't currently overpopulated in the sense that people aren't dying off left and right, but we are overpopulated in the sense that our current population can't be sustained without significant technological advances.

For how long must this population be sustained for it to achieve sustainability?

The foreseeable future. When you rely on resources that are becoming less available, like fossil fuels and water, you are not sustainable.

Some people would argue that technological advancements in fossil fuels are advancing faster than we can consume fossil fuels.  The peak oil theory is complete crap canned, for example.

It's possible that technology could continue to advance fast enough to sustain future populations. In the meantime, humans have driven more than 300 animal species to extinction in the past 500 years, continue to increase the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, more than half of the world's largest aquifers are being depleted, total acres farmed worldwide are decreasing, and deserts are growing, all while human population is still increasing. The world probably hasn't had a sustainable human population since around 1500.

[Ptolemy]

It's possible that technology could continue to advance fast enough to sustain future populations. In the meantime, humans have driven more than 300 animal species to extinction in the past 500 years, continue to increase the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, more than half of the world's largest aquifers are being depleted, total acres farmed worldwide are decreasing, and deserts are growing, all while human population is still increasing. The world probably hasn't had a sustainable human population since around 1500.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Tens of thousands of species have gone extinct without man's influence.

CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere today. Man is responsible for only 0.00114% of the CO2 in the planet's atmosphere.

You DO realize that the water on this planet is not being depleted. Water processing is simply a matter of energy, which will be a problem if we do not stop the current administration's war on cheap energy.

America has more new growth forest than ever. We pay farmers today to not grow certain foods.

Actually, if governments and massive entitlement programs continue to grow at their current pace, there won't be enough people to fund the needs of the aging population. Japan is in crisis mode...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/07/japans-birth-rate-problem-is-way-worse-than-anyone-imagined/

Also, China ended their decades old one child policy.

You need to stop worrying about whether the planet will be around for awhile and start worrying about your children and grand children having to pay off your current country's massive debt.

[wetwillie]

Don't worry, some kind of pestilence or disaster will trim the population back soon enough.