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

[Robin-H]

And the total number of poor people is also increasing.

 

Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day, not sure what your definition of poor is but they all sound poor to me.

 

I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this argument again, seeing as we've pretty much had the exact same discussion to no avail. I think for a discussion to be fruitful one side at least needs to be willing to concede, so, I will be willing to concede the opinion that the world's poor are better off (in real terms) than they were 100, 50, 30 or even 10 years ago, if you (Petminder) are able to give me some evidence based statistics that demonstrate that that is the case.

 

To avoid any doubt, I would need the evidence to show that they have got worse off in real terms. That is their quality of life has declined. The last time I requested evidence you provided an article from Oxfam that said they were getting poorer, but only in relative terms. Delving into the article a little further revealed they were actually getting a tiny little bit richer, only that the world's richest were getting much much richer.

 

Secondly, I agree that there are more poor people on earth today than there were 100 years ago, but that is only because the population of the world has increased dramatically. If you are merely trying to argue that there are more poor people because there are more people, then you are correct. Nobody is refuting that.

 

I also accept that there will be pockets of the global population that indeed are worse off now than 10, 20 years ago. For example, people living in war torn countries or in countries with terrible governments. If I was of relative wealth I would rather have lived in Afghanistan in the 1960s than now. I very much doubt there is anyone on earth that would have had a better life living where they do 100 years ago, but again, show me the evidence and I will concede.

 

That does not however refute my point that overall the world's poor are doing much better. I think some evidence showing that the world's poorest 20% have a worse quality of life now than they did 50 years ago would go a long way in making me concede, but I don't think you'll be able to find it..

[apelike]

We are not talking about the UK, people in the UK are not poor when compared to the poorest people on earth.

 

So how do you define poor?

[Petminder]

So how do you define poor?

 

80% of the worlds population exist on less than $10 a day, I would say they are poor, 50% of the population exist on less than $2.50 so are very poor, and there are still poorer people, 10% are chronically undernourishment and exist on less than $1.25 day, 10% don't have access to clean water, 2.4 billion people don't have access to a toilet.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2016 at 12:56 ----------

 

Since we started doing these calculations, we have watched the wealth of the top grow at the same time as the wealth of the bottom 50% has fallen. The data tells us that the bottom 50% have approximately $1tn less wealth than they did five years ago, while the richest 62 have about $500bn more.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/apr/30/the-worlds-poorest-50-are-a-trillion-dollars-worse-off-whats-going-on

[unbeliever]

80% of the worlds population exist on less than $10 a day, I would say they are poor, 50% of the population exist on less than $2.50 so are very poor, and there are still poorer people, 10% are chronically undernourishment and exist on less than $1.25 day, 10% don't have access to clean water, 2.4 billion people don't have access to a toilet.

 

We're going around in circles. You're engaging in noting but silly word games to try and confirm that which is false.

I shall ignore you and I suggest that others do the same.

[truman]

Because technology is the cause of climate change.

 

What technology was around when the last ice age ended? Or began for that matter..

[Robin-H]

We're going around in circles. You're engaging in noting but silly word games to try and confirm that which is false.

I shall ignore you and I suggest that others do the same.

 

I have asked for evidence of the claims they are making regarding the world's poor getting poorer in real terms (post 331).

 

I strongly suspect they will be unable to provide it, as every piece of reading I have done of the subject shows (as we both know) that the quality of life of the global poor is improving. As someone who has done a large amount of work in the field of international development I would hope that all the sources I have been using, as well as all the fieldwork I have undertaken, haven't been figments of my imagination..

 

Petminder, nobody is refuting the existence of the global poor, or their plight. There is nothing wrong with highlighting this, but it needs to be done in context, and without perpetuating myths which do a great disservice to the people across the globe who are effecting great change for the better.

[unbeliever]

 

Petminder, nobody is refuting the existence of the global poor, or their plight. There is nothing wrong with highlighting this, but it needs to be done in context, and without perpetuating myths which do a great disservice to the people across the globe who are effecting great change for the better.

 

And without providing impetus for bad policy by stating things which are demonstrably false.

[Petminder]

We're going around in circles. You're engaging in noting but silly word games to try and confirm that which is false.

I shall ignore you and I suggest that others do the same.

 

We are going round in circles because you refuse to accept facts.

[Robin-H]

Since we started doing these calculations, we have watched the wealth of the top grow at the same time as the wealth of the bottom 50% has fallen. The data tells us that the bottom 50% have approximately $1tn less wealth than they did five years ago, while the richest 62 have about $500bn more.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/apr/30/the-worlds-poorest-50-are-a-trillion-dollars-worse-off-whats-going-on

 

Petminder, I'm not sure if that link was meant to be the evidence I requested.

 

Again, if you read beyond the headline you will see that it actually says that the incomes of the poorest people in the world have been rising.

 

"In fact to the contrary, the incomes of the poorest have been rising, millions of people have been escaping poverty and in 2015 it was estimated that the extreme poverty rate had fallen to less than 10%"

 

The article tries to come up with a reason why the total wealth of the bottom 50% of the world has decreased. It doesn't give a definitive answer, but one it suggests is precisely what I have been arguing - that the lives of then poorest are getting better. It seems counter intuitive to begin with, but the article explains why the could be the case, stating..

 

"In countries where social insurance mechanisms become stronger, wealth becomes less important as a safety net and people can also afford to take on larger debts. People are better off and more confident about the future, albeit making themselves more vulnerable to financial shocks where social safety nets fail."

 

It also gives a more prosaic explanation..

 

"...the data, particularly for the wealth of the bottom 50% isn’t good enough at the level of detail we want it to explain. This is especially the case for poorer countries where good quality data sources are hard to find."

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2016 at 13:43 ----------

 

We are going round in circles because you refuse to accept facts.

 

No Petminder, we are going round in circles because you are failing to show any evidence to back up what you are saying.

[Petminder]

I have asked for evidence of the claims they are making regarding the world's poor getting poorer in real terms (post 331).

 

I strongly suspect they will be unable to provide it, as every piece of reading I have done of the subject shows (as we both know) that the quality of life of the global poor is improving. As someone who has done a large amount of work in the field of international development I would hope that all the sources I have been using, as well as all the fieldwork I have undertaken, haven't been figments of my imagination..

 

Petminder, nobody is refuting the existence of the global poor, or their plight. There is nothing wrong with highlighting this, but it needs to be done in context, and without perpetuating myths which do a great disservice to the people across the globe who are effecting great change for the better.

 

I provided another link just above your post and a quote from it, but here it is again and I won't be proving another.

 

Since we started doing these calculations, we have watched the wealth of the top grow at the same time as the wealth of the bottom 50% has fallen. The data tells us that the bottom 50% have approximately $1tn less wealth than they did five years ago, while the richest 62 have about $500bn more.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/apr/30/the-worlds-poorest-50-are-a-trillion-dollars-worse-off-whats-going-on

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2016 at 13:49 ----------

 

Petminder, I'm not sure if that link was meant to be the evidence I requested.

 

Again, if you read beyond the headline you will see that it actually says that the incomes of the poorest people in the world have been rising.

 

"In fact to the contrary, the incomes of the poorest have been rising, millions of people have been escaping poverty and in 2015 it was estimated that the extreme poverty rate had fallen to less than 10%"

 

The article tries to come up with a reason why the total wealth of the bottom 50% of the world has decreased. It doesn't give a definitive answer, but one it suggests is precisely what I have been arguing - that the lives of then poorest are getting better. It seems counter intuitive to begin with, but the article explains why the could be the case, stating..

 

"In countries where social insurance mechanisms become stronger, wealth becomes less important as a safety net and people can also afford to take on larger debts. People are better off and more confident about the future, albeit making themselves more vulnerable to financial shocks where social safety nets fail."

 

It also gives a more prosaic explanation..

 

"...the data, particularly for the wealth of the bottom 50% isn’t good enough at the level of detail we want it to explain. This is especially the case for poorer countries where good quality data sources are hard to find."

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2016 at 13:43 ----------

 

 

No Petminder, we are going round in circles because you are failing to show any evidence to back up what you are saying.

 

Its getting boring now, you provide some evidence which backs up your silly claims.