What does it mean to "believe in climate change"?

[phil752]

GDP/capita is a quite excellent measure of quality of life as you'd know if you understood this subject in the slightest rather than whatever ultra-looney-green websites you've been reading.

 

It sounds a fair measure for an average, but as the cold start to creep into the northern industrial countries, i can not but feel the homeless quality of life may be less that their counterpart in less wealthy sunny climates.

Edited November 3, 2016 by phil752

[unbeliever]

No it doesn't, a country with very high GDP can also have millions of very poor people with very poor quality of life.

 

Fine you're determined to believe that which is false.

 

What you describe is not impossible, but it's not what is actually happening.

Technological advancement combined with global trade is gradually eliminating poverty. That's the reality.

All you have to do to "fix" poverty in the world is stay out of it with your whacky nonsense.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 20:58 ----------

 

Its because technological advances always end up destroying the environment in one way or another, and a good clean environment is one of the key ingredients to quality of life.

 

But yes back to square one so I think we better call it quits before we bore everyone to death.

 

Each new generation of technology is less damaging than the last.

Burning wood caused mass deforestation.

Burning whale-oil...

Burning Coal caused (and still does cause) pollution

Burning oil is quite a bit cleaner.

Burning natural gas produces only water and CO2

Burning uranium produces high density waste which remains toxic for several thousand years.

 

Now to the future:

Burning thorium and uranium waste (yes that's the waste from traditional nuclear reactors) in thorium-chain reactors produces high density waste which is safe after 50 years.

Burning deuterium produces only helium.

 

 

You're just wrong. Everything you say is wrong, and everything you think is wrong. You're made of wrong.

This is because you start from the false assumption that technological progress is bad and you cherry pick and falsify evidence to back that up.

You're wrong. Stop talking, and spreading your wrongness around. Go be wrong somewhere quietly if you won't listen to reason.

[Petminder]

Fine you're determined to believe that which is false.

 

What you describe is not impossible, but it's not what is actually happening.

Technological advancement combined with global trade is gradually eliminating poverty. That's the reality.

All you have to do to "fix" poverty in the world is stay out of it with your whacky nonsense.

 

So you don't think there are millions of poor people in the USA or the UK and no one in the world is suffering the consequences of mining rare earth elements or suffering the consequences of fossil fuel extraction and none is suffering from human induced classmate change. Glad we cleared that up.

[unbeliever]

So you don't think there are millions of poor people in the USA or the UK and no one in the world is suffering the consequences of mining rare earth elements or suffering the consequences of fossil fuel extraction and none is suffering from human induced classmate change. Glad we cleared that up.

 

It is staggeringly clear that the benefits of new technology outweigh the side-effects. It is also equally clear that the benefit to harm ration of newer technology beats the pants off that of old technology.

technological progress always has been and always will be the salvation of mankind. It is our greatest ally, and you would have us think it the enemy. Why?

 

Compare the number of people in the UK and USA who can't get enough food now to 1900. Or who don't have shelter. Or who can't heat their homes. Or who don't have access to basic medical care.

I said nothing of the world being perfect. That's a strawman. I claim only, backed up by absolutely mountains of evidence, that it is getting better and that technological progress is why.

[Petminder]

Fine you're determined to believe that which is false.

 

What you describe is not impossible, but it's not what is actually happening.

Technological advancement combined with global trade is gradually eliminating poverty. That's the reality.

All you have to do to "fix" poverty in the world is stay out of it with your whacky nonsense.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 20:58 ----------

 

 

Each new generation of technology is less damaging than the last.

Burning wood caused mass deforestation.

Burning whale-oil...

Burning Coal caused (and still does cause) pollution

Burning oil is quite a bit cleaner.

Burning natural gas produces only water and CO2

Burning uranium produces high density waste which remains toxic for several thousand years.

 

Now to the future:

Burning thorium and uranium waste (yes that's the waste from traditional nuclear reactors) in thorium-chain reactors produces high density waste which is safe after 50 years.

Burning deuterium produces only helium.

 

 

You're just wrong. Everything you say is wrong, and everything you think is wrong. You're made of wrong.

This is because you start from the false assumption that technological progress is bad and you cherry pick and falsify evidence to back that up.

You're wrong. Stop talking, and spreading your wrongness around. Go be wrong somewhere quietly if you won't listen to reason.

 

Less damaging still damages the environment and still adversely affects the poorest people around the world. You might enjoy your new electric car but the people living near the mining sites don't, they just suffer the adverse consequences of extracting the minerals.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 21:03 ----------

 

It is staggeringly clear that the benefits of new technology outweigh the side-effects. It is also equally clear that the benefit to harm ration of newer technology beats the pants off that of old technology.

technological progress always has been and always will be the salvation of mankind. It is our greatest ally, and you would have us think it the enemy. Why?

 

So now poor peoples suffering is just an acceptable side effect that is outweighed by the benefits we get.

[unbeliever]

Less damaging still damages the environment and still adversely affects the poorest people around the world. You might enjoy your new electric car but the people living near the mining sites don't, they just suffer the adverse consequences of extracting the minerals.

 

So you admit it's better, but you say it's still not good enough. What do you propose to do about it?

Are we all to go back to subsistence farming? The Earth could support a population of maybe a few hundred million on that basis. Are you proposing a cull of 95% of the people in the world?

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 21:06 ----------

 

So now poor peoples suffering is just an acceptable side effect that is outweighed by the benefits we get.

 

This benefits everybody. As shown by their higher growth in GDP/capita it benefits poor countries more. What the [expletive deleted]!

[Petminder]

It is staggeringly clear that the benefits of new technology outweigh the side-effects. It is also equally clear that the benefit to harm ration of newer technology beats the pants off that of old technology.

technological progress always has been and always will be the salvation of mankind. It is our greatest ally, and you would have us think it the enemy. Why?

 

Compare the number of people in the UK and USA who can't get enough food now to 1900. Or who don't have shelter. Or who can't heat their homes. Or who don't have access to basic medical care.

I said nothing of the world being perfect. That's a strawman. I claim only, backed up by absolutely mountains of evidence, that it is getting better and that technological progress is why.

 

Its getting better for some and worse for others.

[unbeliever]

Its getting better for some and worse for others.

 

Who is it getting worse for?

[Petminder]

So you admit it's better, but you say it's still not good enough. What do you propose to do about it?

Are we all to go back to subsistence farming? The Earth could support a population of maybe a few hundred million on that basis. Are you proposing a cull of 95% of the people in the world?

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 21:06 ----------

 

 

This benefits everybody. As shown by their higher growth in GDP/capita it benefits poor countries more. What the [expletive deleted]!

 

I don't propose to do anything about it, I'm not the one claiming that everyone can have a good quality life, when it is clear that technology can't deliver that and in fact ruins the lives of millions.

 

Higher GDP doesn't equate to everyone becoming better off, some people can become poorer whilst the average get wealthier.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 21:12 ----------

 

Who is it getting worse for?

 

The people that don't have access to clean water, the people that are dying because of famine.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Petminder

[unbeliever]

I don't propose to do anything about it, I'm not the one claiming that everyone can have a good quality life, when it is clear that technology can't deliver that and in fact ruins the lives of millions.

 

How is it clear?

The fraction of people with a good quality of life keeps going up and up and up, year on year. Why should that stop?

Where do you get these ideas from?

Why do you wish to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 21:13 ----------

 

I

 

Quality of life.

 

I said "Who's it getting worse for". You said it was getting worse for some. I asked who. You haven't answered.