How many billions will die in the next 100 years from global warming.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Oceandevi

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2006
3,085
1
0
Originally posted by: ICRS
Watch an inconvienent truth. The temperature of the earth is rising due to human intervention. Crops around the world are failing because they can no longer withstand the harsh climent being induced by humans. People are all ready starving to death due to global warming. Also notice the increase in hurricanes, all of this can be pin pointed to human caused global warming.

OMG FUCK!!

This guy is on to something!!
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Originally posted by: Squisher
To those of you interested in a different take on the effects of global warming and what we should do about it, the other guy that testified before congress besides Al Gore has a very good book called Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg.

A very good read by someone not wrapped up in hysteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[4]

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.


MSTI review
On February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which has oversight over the DSCD.

On December 17, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD. In doing so, MSTI cited several procedural errors, including:

The DCSD did not use a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;[citation needed]
The DCSD's definition of "objective scientific dishonesty" was not clear about whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be deliberate or not;[citation needed]
The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors. On this point the MSTI stated "the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and ... the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher's working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why."[5]
The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid.[6][7] The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate.
[edit]

Response of the scientific community

The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition[8] among Danish academics. 308 scientists, many of them from the social sciences, criticised the DCSD's methods in the case and called for the DCSD to be disbanded.[9] The Danish Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation then asked the Danish Research Agency to form an independent working group to review DCSD practices.[10] In response to this, another group of Danish scientists collected over 600 signatures (primarily from the medical and natural sciences community) in support of the DCSD and presented their petition to the Danish Research Agency.[9]


EDIT: like so many of the eco-nazis, if you don't like the message discredit the messenger.

Haha... Locut0s = pwned
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: ICRS
Watch an inconvienent truth. The temperature of the earth is rising due to human intervention. Crops around the world are failing because they can no longer withstand the harsh climent being induced by humans. People are all ready starving to death due to global warming. Also notice the increase in hurricanes, all of this can be pin pointed to human caused global warming.

Text
 

Oceandevi

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2006
3,085
1
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: ICRS
Watch an inconvienent truth. The temperature of the earth is rising due to human intervention. Crops around the world are failing because they can no longer withstand the harsh climent being induced by humans. People are all ready starving to death due to global warming. Also notice the increase in hurricanes, all of this can be pin pointed to human caused global warming.

Text

Bwhaha
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
2
0
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Originally posted by: Squisher
To those of you interested in a different take on the effects of global warming and what we should do about it, the other guy that testified before congress besides Al Gore has a very good book called Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg.

A very good read by someone not wrapped up in hysteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[4]

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.


MSTI review
On February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which has oversight over the DSCD.

On December 17, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD. In doing so, MSTI cited several procedural errors, including:

The DCSD did not use a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;[citation needed]
The DCSD's definition of "objective scientific dishonesty" was not clear about whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be deliberate or not;[citation needed]
The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors. On this point the MSTI stated "the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and ... the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher's working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why."[5]
The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid.[6][7] The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate.
[edit]

Response of the scientific community

The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition[8] among Danish academics. 308 scientists, many of them from the social sciences, criticised the DCSD's methods in the case and called for the DCSD to be disbanded.[9] The Danish Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation then asked the Danish Research Agency to form an independent working group to review DCSD practices.[10] In response to this, another group of Danish scientists collected over 600 signatures (primarily from the medical and natural sciences community) in support of the DCSD and presented their petition to the Danish Research Agency.[9]


EDIT: like so many of the eco-nazis, if you don't like the message discredit the messenger.

Lomborg spoke at my University this last Spring. It was a thought-provoking lecture, and very informative. :thumbsup:
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Ironically, killing a few billion humans, although tragic, would be a very good thing for humanity in the long term.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: XMan
It's rather presumptuous to think that the world, which has gone through untold numbers of climate changes in the past millenia, is only now warming up because of mankind. One volcanic eruption puts more pollution in the air than a hundred years of automobiles.

Nature is anything but static.
Sure, the world has been around. And yes, it goes through major climate swings.
We tend to like a pretty narrow range of conditions though.
Look at what the Universe offers: From nearly 0K to millions of degrees Kelvin. We like a very very tiny range of that.
Even Earth has a wide range of suitable climates.
We like a fairly narrow range.

That's the concern about global warming - not that it's going to initiate some huge change that's going to render the planet unsuitable for all life, but that the slight variation in temperatures might nudge us out of our "comfort zone." In the grand scheme of things, it's merely an inconvenient truth, not a disastrous one.


My take on it is that we should focus on reducing pollution, and reducing dependency on fossil fuels. They are finite in quantity, and in some cases, the deposits are located in regions of the world where there is excessive political instability.
We can look to nuclear power (fission for now, fusion for the future), and wind/solar instead. Solar and fusion power in the next few decades should be able to provide for a lot of our energy needs, with minimal environmental impact. Wind farms do absorb energy from natural winds, and this can have some small effect on the local ecosystem and weather patterns. Just how small this effect is would require study for each unique location. And fusion would use deuterium from the oceans, or possibly helium-3 harvested from the Moon, with the production of only low-level, short-lived radioactive waste, if any.

The side effect of this would be a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Everyone's happy.



In other news, yes, ICRS is a troll.

Well, until we find out a means of regulating the solar output of the sun, we will either adapt, or die, to a continuously changing climate. My money's on adapt.
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
:roll:
Originally posted by: ICRS
Watch an inconvienent truth. The temperature of the earth is rising due to human intervention. Crops around the world are failing because they can no longer withstand the harsh climent being induced by humans. People are all ready starving to death due to global warming. Also notice the increase in hurricanes, all of this can be pin pointed to human caused global warming.

Pretty funny that Dr. William Gray, one of the world's foremost hurricane experts, not only dismisses the link between global warming and hurricanes, he also flat out denies that GW is manmade as well.......
I guess Al Gore knows more than he does though.......
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: between
Ironically, it is possible more people will die from the impending oil shortage than from global warming. modern agricultural techniques (which allow about 6 billion people to live on the planet) are dependent on cheap energy from oil. Once the oil dries up, we may only be able to produce enough food to support a few billion folks.

I think he's got a point there. :Q
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,960
140
106
Originally posted by: 0
Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
0

I resemble that statement. And I agree.

The real question is how many millions believe this crap.


..shhh. your messing up the scam. Get in on the grift and sell the eco-KOOKS life rafts or something. They're the same bunch that bought into the Y2K "the world is ending" dope.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: 0
Originally posted by: ICRS
How many billions will parish due to global warming in the next 100 years?

BTW, I stay in motels to save $$, and I shop at goodwill. :)

pshh.

I sleep in ditches and mug homeless people for their clothes.

 
May 31, 2001
15,326
2
0
I need to do what the one guy did on eBay. Take some pictures of trees, and threaten to cut them down if people don't "buy" them as Carbon Credits.

Of course, I will just cut them down and use them as firewood anyway. :p
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
To be honest, we have a much greater chance of Nuclear Winter in the next 25 years than surviving for the next 100 anyway. If you think im crazy, you better read some news.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,932
1,113
126
I'm waiting for scientists to realize that bong resin causes global warming and that it's the hippies themselves destroying the earth.
 

SneakyStuff

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2004
4,294
0
76
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I'm waiting for scientists to realize that bong resin causes global warming and that it's the hippies themselves destroying the earth.

:laugh:
 

Nik

Lifer
Jun 5, 2006
16,101
2
56
Originally posted by: ICRS
Watch an inconvienent truth. The temperature of the earth is rising due to human intervention. Crops around the world are failing because they can no longer withstand the harsh climent being induced by humans. People are all ready starving to death due to global warming. Also notice the increase in hurricanes, all of this can be pin pointed to human caused global warming.

No, it can't.

Global warming has yet to be proven or disproven.

You buy into too much bullshit.
 

ric1287

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,845
0
0
ICRS IS A FUCKING TROLL. He makes some ridiculous topic about random ass bullshit and never replies. STOP.

STOP REPLYING TO HIS THREADS AFTER THIS LINE.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________