Arthur
Honorary Master
Ditto. Beliefs do not make facts, no matter how strongly held. Reality is something quite independent of your own mind.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: At what point do you sell your car?
Flood Wall Street
- Thread starter Polymathic
- Start date
Polymathic
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 33,670
- Reaction score
- 14,746
CNN, Fox and etc are acting in the interest of their advertisers and downplaying this story. Have you seen the amount of adverts from oil companies are shown on CNN recently
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
jackshiels
Expert Member
I personally don't believe in climate change, but it's pretty obvious the media coverage is low because the media is owned by these large corporations.
Why do we trust them again?? They are almost as dangerous as big government.
Why do we trust them again?? They are almost as dangerous as big government.
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
Cool thing about reality is it's true whether you believe in it or not.
Arthur
Honorary Master
Amen to that.
You've been caught out in your lies on MyBB quite a few times Arthur. I don't call you a liar because you've disagreed with me, but because you've actually lied. Not only is it dishonest to pretend it isn't so...
So is this. Well put OD.
And this isn't for your benefit. I know it's true and you know it's true. This is for anyone who might be falling into your nonsense.
It was around 50-100 billion. Arthur is welcome to refute that if he is able, or to clarify what the number was.
Polymathic
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 33,670
- Reaction score
- 14,746
I think he doesn't really understand the concept of what a billion is.
I have to give him more credit than that. Though some of these religious people think the Earth is only a few thousand years old so who knows.
Arthur
Honorary Master
50 billion. With a b. As in 50 x 10^9. 
You guys have no imagination.
In the 6thC BC Anaximander believed the earth was already full. Tertullian in about AD 220, when global pop was under 200 million (as in <200x10^6), wrote "What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint), is our teeming population: our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, whilst Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race. . . .”
Of course I am well aware that current projections have global pop levelling out a tad over 9b around mid-century.
I certainly don't think 50b is anywhere in remote prospect. In any case, all current projections on loadings and carrying capacity are based on current technologies, agricultural methods, known resources, etc. As always, the great variable is human ingenuity - and that can dramatically change the equations, as it has many times before. Also, our understanding of natural resources barely scratches the surface. At best, our current projections can easily be out by an order of magnitude, perhaps two or three. Just recently, for example, it's been established that there's more water in the crust than in all the oceans and lakes of the planet combined. I say all this only to illustrate that your ostensible "scientific certainties" about population and resources are by no means established, because the data is very limited, and in any case human inventiveness works as a massive multiplier of efficiency.
Still, I don't want this thread about the Flood Wall Street loons to get derailed into squabbles about AGW or global pop. The future is at best conjecture. However, there is ample precedent to caution us in our certainties. If there is one indisputable thing the record of human prognostications and projections about imminent demise shows, it's that we get it consistently wrong. Often, spectacularly wrong. And by swimming against the currently fashionable prognostications and hypotheses, however securely they may claim to be based on science, the odds of being right actually increase. That is a matter of irrefutable historical record.
----
Oh, and Randhir: I think the earth as a planet is between 4 and 5 billion years old (measured as current Earth years, not Saturn years). There are however populated islands that at best surfaced above the waves in the last few thousand years, believe it or not.
You guys have no imagination.
In the 6thC BC Anaximander believed the earth was already full. Tertullian in about AD 220, when global pop was under 200 million (as in <200x10^6), wrote "What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint), is our teeming population: our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, whilst Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race. . . .”
Of course I am well aware that current projections have global pop levelling out a tad over 9b around mid-century.
I certainly don't think 50b is anywhere in remote prospect. In any case, all current projections on loadings and carrying capacity are based on current technologies, agricultural methods, known resources, etc. As always, the great variable is human ingenuity - and that can dramatically change the equations, as it has many times before. Also, our understanding of natural resources barely scratches the surface. At best, our current projections can easily be out by an order of magnitude, perhaps two or three. Just recently, for example, it's been established that there's more water in the crust than in all the oceans and lakes of the planet combined. I say all this only to illustrate that your ostensible "scientific certainties" about population and resources are by no means established, because the data is very limited, and in any case human inventiveness works as a massive multiplier of efficiency.
Still, I don't want this thread about the Flood Wall Street loons to get derailed into squabbles about AGW or global pop. The future is at best conjecture. However, there is ample precedent to caution us in our certainties. If there is one indisputable thing the record of human prognostications and projections about imminent demise shows, it's that we get it consistently wrong. Often, spectacularly wrong. And by swimming against the currently fashionable prognostications and hypotheses, however securely they may claim to be based on science, the odds of being right actually increase. That is a matter of irrefutable historical record.
----
Oh, and Randhir: I think the earth as a planet is between 4 and 5 billion years old (measured as current Earth years, not Saturn years). There are however populated islands that at best surfaced above the waves in the last few thousand years, believe it or not.
Last edited:
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
Arthur
Honorary Master
"Science is the culture of doubt."
-- Richard Feynman
Which is why I doubt your ostensible scientific certainties.
-- Richard Feynman
Which is why I doubt your ostensible scientific certainties.
jackshiels
Expert Member
I agree 100%.
daveza
Honorary Master
Give it a rest.
What do you have against hippies - or is it just anyone who cares about the planet, misguided or not ?