Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you know the flap about Bush's service record in the Nat'l Guard? You know how its being sold that his family pulled strings so he got out of normal service and into the Guard?

Yep.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Doesn't the fact that he ended up flying jets indicate he must be relatively smart,

"relatively smart" is a relative term.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I mean they don't give every knuckle head a $$$$$$ jet to wreck. The military only gave Kerry a tiny little boat, not even a PT boat. Doesn't being selected to fly a jet indicate something?

(a) You ever met a fighterpilot?

(b) It means he had outstanding vision, coordination, and reflexes. The reported score of 25% on the pilot aptitude test would tend to preclude any IQ record.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(b) It means he had outstanding vision, coordination, and reflexes. The reported score of 25% on the pilot aptitude test would tend to preclude any IQ record.

S_A_M

What report on score?
But anyway, you admit that he wasn't simply some no acoount hidden away by the family, he had aptitude to be a flighter pilot. SAM I don't look for much from you guys, this simple admission is a good start.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is not entirely true. By most accounts, it is anticipated that the human population will begin to contract in between 30 to 50 years.

cite please?

Or is this one of those statements that on its face is accurate, but fails to note that in that time the population will more than double, and then start dropping off?

[sgtclub]

Can be heard via link on this page:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004678

Scroll down to line "audio clip of Gore"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
cite please?

Or is this one of those statements that on its face is accurate, but fails to note that in that time the population will more than double, and then start dropping off?

Well its a little more complicated, I'll try and explain. See we know population is increasing because we can see the numbers, theres no real question, but as it increases very soon people will begin to feel to crowded so they'll stop reproducing and thus population will decrease, only because it is increasing. See?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
cite please?

Or is this one of those statements that on its face is accurate, but fails to note that in that time the population will more than double, and then start dropping off?

My bad. The anticipated decline is limited to developed countries (i.e., Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan).

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is not entirely true. By most accounts, it is anticipated that the human population will begin to contract in between 30 to 50 years.

The fact that population will contract at some point is not something I dispute. It will have to contract at some point because we won't have the resources to support all those people. My point is that in the process of getting to the piont that the population contracts because of lack of sufficient resources, the damage that will be done may be irreparable.

I have never heard your estimates. My understanding is that the predictions were that the Earth's population would peak at 10 - 12 billion people simply because we lack the resources to provide for more. Perhaps technology will advance and we could support more at some point. However, so far the technology we have developed for the industrial type farming that is necessary to support ever growing populations is an environmental disaster itself. If you don't believe me, try living close by to one of those huge pig farms in Iowa or N.C.

In my lifetime alone, the population has gone from 3 billlion to 6 billion. And I am not that old.

There is a limit to how many humans the Earth has the resources to support and in the process of reaching that limit, the Earth is getting trashed.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My bad. The anticipated decline is limited to developed countries (i.e., Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan).

Actually, most estimates are that the total Earth population will peak at some point and then contract. Most everyone seems to accept that. The only dispute is over what is the largest number of humans that the Earth can support and when it will be reached and will we have irreparably damaged the global ecosystem to get to that point.

The human population will contract at some point, but it likely will not be by choice.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My bad. The anticipated decline is limited to developed countries (i.e., Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan).

Hasn't it already started to decline, net of immigration? I don't think too many developed countries have had replacement-rate birthrates for some time (yes, and it's delayed reaction, because the max happens 20-30 years after the birth rate starts to decline.

That said, the issue hasn't been developed countries for at least 50 years. It's countries where families ahve 10 kids because 8 die by 16, and if they don't, you've got them to till the fields anyway. As soon as we get Africa and India enough food, the populations in those countries will explode for 50 years, until families realize that they don't need 10 kids to net 2 adults.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
My bad. The anticipated decline is limited to developed countries (i.e., Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan).

And, in fact, the anticipated decline is only anticipated if there is strong anti-immigrant pressure. Otherwise, it becomes much like trying to fill up the left half of the bucket.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Actually, most estimates are that the total Earth population will peak at some point and then contract. Most everyone seems to accept that. The only dispute is over what is the largest number of humans that the Earth can support and when it will be reached and will we have irreparably damaged the global ecosystem to get to that point.

The human population will contract at some point, but it likely will not be by choice.

I was thinking over the next 50 years, not beyond that.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I couldn't even tell you which scientists I'm talking about,

I can. For instance, the National Academy of Sciences.

You can read about who constitutes the NAS here:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf

They have 2000 members, 180 of whom are Nobel Laureates.

You can read their publications on global warming here:

http://lab.nap.edu/nap-cgi/discover....global+warming

You can read about their journal here:

http://www.pnas.org

Hardly a fringe group.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
And, in fact, the anticipated decline is only anticipated if there is strong anti-immigrant pressure. Otherwise, it becomes much like trying to fill up the left half of the bucket.

While I'm trying to visualize your metaphor (the left half?), I will note that in a couple of countries it's not so much anti-immigration pressure from within, as external factors contribute as well.

See, e.g., Japan (where -- though there's certainly isolationist tendencies within -- culturally it's so distinct that you don't see the huddled masses headed there on cars-as-rafts) and Russia (where, in many of the more remote regions, the population is graying out altogether. Between the demographics and the brain drain in Russia, experts note that in the next few decades, they're probably fucked.)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Now there is the apparent observations that cyclic changes have happened repeatedly over history, and it seems that temperatures are actually falling lately.

First of all, what temperature are you talking about because it makes a difference. The Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. It is the temperature at the ground level that is thought to be most useful for assessing climatic changes. There has been no drop in the Earth's surface temperature and that is the one that is the most reflective of the long-term changes.

Furthermore, it is not just temperature that is concerning; it is also the composition of the gases in the atomosphere that have changed that is concerning. And this is temporally related to the Industrial Revolution which is evidence pointing away from this just being a cyclic change in the weather.

This is an example (from the EPA):

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%.

The steady rise in surface temperature of the Earth, which has accelerated in the past 2 decades, and the change in composition of the gases in the atmosphere are quite concerning.

[bilmore]

For those who were arguing about Ms. Martha earlier, I'll repeat my point of several days ago:

She's fucked.

Expect a plea.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040210/D80KKRCG0.html