How do global warming predictors derive the growth rate of emissions?
Are they just an extrapolation of past to current trends?
Do they consider the constraint on population growth caused by a fixed supply of resources?
Our population is so big now and is rapidly approaching its limit.
Are the predicted emissions actually reasonable?
By lying
Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&NR=1
By lying
Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&NR=1
References :
There is no limit to human population growth. All so-called "resource constraints" are soluble through the application of technology. The Malthusian freaks derive their predictions based on a number of tacit assumptions, among them:
- That population rises at a geometric rate, whereas the means of subsistence increase only at a linear rate. In reality, unless there are policies which prevent development in place, economic output tends to increase at a geometric rate, whereas population growth tends to increase in a more linear fashion.
- That humans are mere beasts, who cannot increase their knowledge or the productive powers of labor, and thus their relative potential population density in a given area. If that were true, then modern civilization would be an impossibility.
- That human civilization is confined to a fixed area. In reality, the only limit to the expansion of human civilization is the universe itself.
Since all of these assumptions are demonstrably false, Malthusian dogma is therefore nothing but discredited clap-trap. There is no human "overpopulation." Rather, what we have is severe underdevelopment and under-utilization of technology and industry.
References :
No idea.
All i know is that it will affect all of us at some point.
For example - hurricane America.
References :