Tag Archives: climate

Overpopulation, another liberal bout of baseless hysteria…

So a friend shared with me this gruesomely titled article, “Top Democrat Pushing For “One Child” Population Control In America.”   Now, the Democrat in question is Michael E. Arth, a failed Democratic candidate for the governor’s mansion in Florida.  So I’m not sure if I would say “Top Democrat” is completely accurate…but he’s certainly up there…but his statements are actually rather typical for liberals and their insane fear of overpopulation.

 

Here are some fun highlights:

 

Now, thanks to the one-child policy – to which there are many exceptions, by the way – China’s ageing population will probably not grow much more from now on, as long as they don’t remove the restrictions.

 

China, and the rest of the world, would be better served by a choice-based marketable birth license plan, or “birth credits,” that could stop or reverse population growth on a dime. Birth credits allow people to have as many children as they desire and can manage and reward people who are willing to give up that right.

 

The limit to individual freedom is where the exercise of an individual right begins to infringe on the rights we hold in common.

 

 

 

If you feel like vomiting, I can’t blame you.

 

Liberals seem to think that the world is heading to an apocalyptic scenario where every part of the world is crammed with people stacked on top of each other while simultaneously the Malthusian nightmare of perpetual famine, war, pollution and death.  And of course the only way to solve this problem is the same answer liberals have for every single problem in the history of human existence*: more government regulation.  To a liberal we of course need the government to limit how many children we can have, license who can have children, punish those whom we don’t like having children, and provide free ways to dispose of those nasty little bastards when you don’t want to have them.**  I think we’ve all joked, upon seeing the inept wretches out there that have children, that there should be licensing to have children…but we also all agree that the idiots who run the DMV with such efficiency, the NSA with such high moral standards, and Treasury with such common sense and restraint, are quite literally the most unqualified people to issue such license, and are in fact the people whose births we hoped would have been prevented by such regulation.  I think we can all agree Joe Biden’s mother made a terrible, terrible mistake in deciding to keep him.  Now you may think I’m exaggerating, that it’s only a few kooks…but no.  A search of the terms Overpopulation, Sustainability, Carrying Capacity yield articles from CNN, MSNBC, Salon, and of course this one from the UN itself on the horrific terror that overpopulation brings.  And there is a plethora of even less reputable sources.  Granted I may not always view these as the most accurate of sources, but it does show a mentality that thinks that overpopulation is a problem…and for them it is a problem related to all their whiny fake environmentalist hysteria, and just general hatred of the individual who makes their own choices.

 

You can see this hatred is for the individual in Arth’s words:

 

The limit to individual freedom is where the exercise of an individual right begins to infringe on the rights we hold in common.

 

There is no such thing as “rights held in common.”  Only individuals have rights.  ONLY INDIVIDUALS.  Groups do not hold rights.  We can talk about balancing the needs of the whole versus the rights of one person, we can talk about practicality, but never make the mistake that the call for pragmatism in policy has anything to do with the rights of groups.  Only individuals hold rights, because only individuals can make the choices to exercise those rights.  When people talk about group rights held in common, they are only saying that a government task master will be the one exercising control and choice over the sheep they control.  And what greater control could there be than to say who can and cannot have a child and when they can or can’t.  This coming from the party that says government has no right to say what you do in the bedroom or with whom.

 

 

World Birth Rate

See all the blue…that is areas that is going to experience a very large population drop within a generation…the green will be lucky to stay at current levels.

There is of course one tiny little problem.  US population is dropping, European population is dropping,   Hell, world population may be dropping.  If it wasn’t for immigration it would be even more evident.  And even if it isn’t dropping, you could actually fit all 6.9 billion people in Texas if you packed them in at the population density of New York City…doesn’t exactly sound like there is no room for anyone else. Now for liberals who statistically live in crowded cities, it may seem like there is no room left, in reality there is A LOT of land left.

 

Part of the problem is they hold Malthus’s ideas as gospel.  For those not familiar with them, here is the short, short version.  Malthus believes that technology increased food production arithmetically (10, 12, 14, 16, 18…all plus 2) while population grew geometrically (2, 4, 8, 16, 32…all times 2) over a certain period of time.  So when you start and there is food for 10,000 people and you only have 2,000, you’re all good…but after a while you have food for 16,000 and a population of 16,000…still good until the next generation when you don’t have enough food to feed 14,000.  This leads to wars over food, famine from lack, disease from malnutrition (modern liberals would add pollution from over farming habits) and just suffering in general.  The problem here is that Malthus understood nothing about the coming effects of science, technology, innovation, mass production, the industrial revolution, and of course capitalism.  ***

 

Overpopulation is a lie.  It is not a global problem.  Like so many things it is merely a tool of fear, an excuse to expand the power of those in control over the rest of us.

 

However, I would like to say that this does not mean that the opposite is completely true as some foolish conservatives seems to claim.  Overpopulation isn’t a global problem…but it is a problem in certain areas.  The third world has a major problem with over population.  Yes capitalism and all the benefits it brings make Malthus’ predictions pointless…but without capitalism everything Malthus feared goes on in the third world with deadly accuracy.  And overpopulation makes it worse because it actually works against creating capitalism.  The most egregious example is of course parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.  There you see overpopulation continue in a way that actually prevents capitalism from taking root.  It keeps the population just malnourished enough to prevent them from really having the energy to find the entrepreneurial spirit.  It keeps any attempt to build the infrastructure necessary for the modern economy just out of reach because once you plan, invest, and create infrastructure for one level of population the population has grown just enough to make that level of infrastructure inadequate.  It prevents the growth of a middle class and hampers mass education since so much time must be spent looking for what resources there are that must be spread out among the whole.  Malthus wasn’t wrong about what happens, he just didn’t know you had to add the caveat “unless you have capitalism.”

 

onechild

All I can say is that I think we should all feel very lucky that the government isn’t in control of every aspect of our medical care…oh wait…well crap…

And there is no easy answer here.  Because the government controls vile idiots like Arth propose would only make it worse.  Don’t believe me, look at what wonders they did in Detroit…do you really want to let liberals have control over a place that’s already doing badly.   Of course helping promote capitalism in these area might not stop the suffering immediately but it will promote the long term prosperity.

 

But despite the fact that overpopulation may be a problem in certain areas due more to lack of economic infrastructure than actual population, overpopulation, is not, has never been and will never be a global problem.

 

 

 

*Unless it involves narcotics or regulation the health standards of abortion clinics.  The liberals are quite dead set against government even acknowledging such things exist beyond your absolute right to use such things.

**I’m prochoice, but the way the left defend the absolute right of any woman to abort a fetus the day before her due date is just a tad disturbing.  Like most rational prochoice people I find little problem with abortion in the first trimester, but anything after that starts getting ethically iffy…although, conversely, if you’re so unspeakably stupid that you haven’t made up your mind by 20 weeks, you may not be qualified to have children.

***I’ll attack the idea, but honestly, I have a hard time really blaming Malthus who wrote around 1800. He wasn’t that far off for his time.  Yes there had been many technological advances over the 2,000 years before him…like crop rotation, and how to make really bad steel, and gun powder.  But in the grand scheme of things the 2,000 years before Malthus saw almost no advances when compared to the 200 years that followed him.  Yeah we can look to the Renaissance and see where the groundwork was laid for modern science and technology, but almost none of it had materialized into anything practical when Malthus wrote.  They were still using chamber pots.  Bleeding was still a popular medical technique, and in terms of practicality quantum mechanics has more meaning to your life than electricity had for Malthus.  So I really can’t blame him for not seeing how much technology driven by capitalism (also a new idea in Malthus’s time) could radically change the way people lived.  He had no way to foresee the massive upheaval of technology that would follow him

 

3 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Government is corrupt, Natural Rights, politics, Tyranny

Global Warming Facts…

And by facts I mean scientific studies that show, maybe the hype about global warming and climate change is a bit over done.  The end is not near, mankind is not killing the planet, the world will keep turning and climate will keep changing as it always has with or without humans.

P. Chylek, et al. 2004″Global warming and the Greenland ice sheet,” Climate Change 63, 201-21. “Since 1940… data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend…. The Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend.”

Doran, P. T., Priscu, J. C., Lyons, W. B., Walsh, … and Parsons, A. N., 2002, “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response,” Nature 415: 517-20.
From 1986 to 2000 central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold.

Comiso, J. C., 2000, “Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements,”Journal of Climate 13: 1674-96.
Both satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling over the last 20 years.

Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, “Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica,” Science 295: 476-80.
Side-looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years.

Thompson, D. W. J., and Solomon, S., 2002, “Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change,” Science 296: 895-99.
Antarctic peninsula has warmed several degrees while interior has cooled somewhat. Ice shelves have retreated but sea ice has increased.

Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N. L., … and Stievenard, M., 1999, “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica,”Nature 399: 429-36.
During the last four interglacials, going back 420,000 years, the Earth was warmer that it is today.

Anderson, J. B., and Andrews, J. T., 1999, “Radiocarbon constraints on ice sheet advance and retreat in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica,” Geology 27: 179-82.
Less Antarctic ice has melted today than occurred during the last interglacial.

Liu, J., Curry, J. A., and Martinson, D. G., 2004, “Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability,” Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2003 GLO18732.
Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1979.

Vyas, N. K., Dash, M. K., Bhandari, S. M., Khare, N., Mitra, A., and Pandey, P. C., 2003, “On the secular trends in sea ice extent over the antarctic region based on OCEANSAT-1 MSMR observations,” International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24: 2277-87.
Trend toward more sea ice may be accelerating.

Parkinson, C. L., 2002, “Trends in the length of the souther Ocean sea-ice season, 1979-99,” Annals of Glaciology 34: 435-40.
The greater part of Antarctica experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979.

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 774: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Same as above. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, p. 330. “Natural climate variability on long time-scales will continue to be problematic for CO2 climate change analysis and detection.”

C. Landsea, et al., 2000, “How much skill was there in forecasting the very strong 1997-1998 El Nino?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 81: 2107-19. “… one could have even less confidence in anthropogenic global warming studies because of the lack of skill in predicting El Nino… the successes of ENSO forecasting have been overstated (sometimes drastically) and misapplied it in other arenas.”

Fred Pearce, “Africans go back to the land as plants reclaim the desert,” New Scientist 175, 21 September 20021 pp. 4-5. “Africa’s deserts are in retreat… Analysis of satellite images… reveals that dunes are retreating right across the Sahel region… Vegetation is ousting sand across a swathe of land stretching… 6,000 kilometers… Analysts say the gradual greening has been happening since the mid 1980’s, though has gone largely unnoticed.”

Paul Reiter, et al, “Global warming and malaria: a call for accuracy,” Lancet, 4, no. 1 (June 2004).”Many of these much-publicized predictions are ill informed and misleading.”

Roger J. Braithwaite, “Glacier mass balance, the first 50 years of international monitoring,” Progress in Physical Geography 26 no. 1 (2002): 76-95. “There is no obvious common global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years.”

The fallowing quotations is from the IPCC.
According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Examination of meteorological data fails to support the perception [of increased frequency and severity of extreme climate events] in the context of long term climate change.”
“Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, throughout the twentieth century…”
“No long term trend events” for tropical and extratropical storms, and no systematic changes in the “frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail.”

Nature 22 (October 2003):395-741, stated that, with Russia signed on, temperature affected by Kyoto would be -.02 degrees Celsius by 2050.
IPCC models estimate more but none exceed .15 degrees Celsius.

Thank you Dr. M. Crichton for compiling this list.

2 Comments

Filed under Environmentalism

What Obama calls the Flat Earth Society I call facts

I could go on and on personally, but why listen to me…here are some facts about “Global Warming”

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims–Forbes.  apparently there isn’t as much consensus as Obama would like you to believe.  (This one is fun because it has a who’s who of scientists who think this Global Warming hysteria is ridiculous).
A cooling consensus–The Economist. What warming there was, which really wasn’t a lot, has been slowly in defiance of the fanatics.
A Cure Worse Than the Disease: Global Economic Impact of Global Warming Policy–Heritage.  Though the title speaks for itself it needs to be reiterated that destroying capitalism would be worse than even the most dire predictions of these chicken littles.
Global Warming and Global Food Security–Cato.  On what whiny chiken littles these Global Warming prophets of doom are.
Hurricane Sandy: Not the Global Warming Bombshell It’s Cracked Up to Be–Heritage.  The weather disasters blamed on Global Warming really have little if anything to do with it.

In Defense of Carbon Dioxide–WSJ Even more scientists attacking this hysteria.

Tree ring studies confirm global COOLING–a summary of an much longer study here.

Global_Cooling_11

Al Gore’s ‘nine Inconvenient Untruths’–Telegraph. The holy grail of Global Warming is apparently based on a bunch of lies..and the lies were the best they could do.
To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here–Forbes.  Going over the fact that climate change is kind of a basic fact of the globe historically.  It happened a lot before humans were burning fossil fuels, it will continue to happen at odd and unpredictable times…humans have little to do with it.
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says–National Geographic. Gee, there are climate changes on Mars that mirror the changes on the Earth.  Hmm…I guess fossil fuels are so bad that they’re effecting other planets!  Oh, wait, maybe it’s the sun.

A few thoughts on Global Warming...

Look climate is never stable.  Never has been, never will be.  Has temperature gone up in the last century.  Yeah.  But no factual link between humans has been found.  Are humans to blame for some of it…certainly on a limited scale, because we’re covering the areas we live in heat conducting asphalt, amazing then that these areas of high population density are warmer than they were previously.

Let me just ask you this…the hysteria wing has been promising that the Earth will burn and the sea will rise for over 30 years…and honestly, everything pretty much looks the same as it did 30 years ago.  So where is the proof?

Also if environmentalists are so concerned, why are they not pushing for more nuclear energy? It’s cleaner, cheaper and more efficient.  If we replaced all production with nuclear energy you would not only radically reduce the amount of CO2 released but lower the cost of energy and free up massive amounts of money that could go into research for more efficient solar cells and batteries for electric cars…but strangely they don’t want that.  Why?

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Government is useless, politics