Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Extinction Rebellion

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Extinction Rebellion

Old 1st Jul 2020, 17:16
  #481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 284
I believe a scary rational has become the norm. Scientist are no longer scientists. For at least the last decade probably 2 no real scientist would ever even touch anything that doesnít support climate change as it would be an instant end to their career. Science was always supposed to be coming up with a hypothesis and then designing an experiment to prove it. For years now though science has flip 180 and they have proven and just pick experiments that support their beliefs.

Science was never suppose to be political or ideological. It is both now, which is why I donít fully trust climate scientists anymore. We know the nature of the universe better than we know the nature of the climate and everything that effects it yet they have already proven their theory. Nope. Not how it is supposed to work.

Im personally a fence sitter. I donít conclusively believe one way or the other, but it really makes no difference as mankind is terrible at change. We are great at adaptation. We keep missing all targets that have been set and will always continue to do so. If we just sat back and had a rethink, and decided to adapt to climate change rather than try to change human nature we would be much better off.
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 17:32
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by highflyer40 View Post
I Science was always supposed to be coming up with a hypothesis and then designing an experiment to prove it.
better off.
This is absolutely wrong. Good science does not set about to prove anything. And cannot. Good science sets about to TEST hypothesis.

It is trusted as a philosophy of generating knowledge for this reason. If a hypothesis withstands testing over and over it is seen to support a theory, law or principle. And to be robust.

Looking for evidence to support an argument (and eschewing information which does not) can be seen as an opposite form of knowledge generation. This is what religions do. And people who are only interested in proving their point
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 17:41
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by Torquetalk View Post
This is absolutely wrong. Good science does not set about to prove anything. And cannot. Good science sets about to TEST hypothesis.

It is trusted as a philosophy of generating knowledge for this reason. If a hypothesis withstands testing over and over it is seen to support a theory, law or principle. And to be robust.

Looking for evidence to support an argument (and eschewing information which does not) can be seen as an opposite form of knowledge generation. This is what religions do. And people who are only interested in proving their point
sorry wrong use of a word there, but your above quote is all science has been doing for the last decade. They havenít been doing any real science other than what will support their already preconceived theory. Anything even remotely anti climate change would be either cancelled or not funded.

Climate change HAS become a religion in the scientific circles. Itís an easy money generator.
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 17:44
  #484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by Torquetalk View Post
This is absolutely wrong. Good science does not set about to prove anything. And cannot. Good science sets about to TEST hypothesis.

It is trusted as a philosophy of generating knowledge for this reason. If a hypothesis withstands testing over and over it is seen to support a theory, law or principle. And to be robust.

Looking for evidence to support an argument (and eschewing information which does not) can be seen as an opposite form of knowledge generation. This is what religions do. And people who are only interested in proving their point

Well said!!!

As a retired scientist, I can say with certainty that science absolutely doesn't set out to prove anything. It's a point I've made here a few times, often in the coronavirus thread.
VP959 is online now  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 18:03
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by highflyer40 View Post
sorry wrong use of a word there, but your above quote is all science has been doing for the last decade. They havenít been doing any real science other than what will support their already preconceived theory. Anything even remotely anti climate change would be either cancelled or not funded.

Climate change HAS become a religion in the scientific circles. Itís an easy money generator.
Well, I might ask you to provide evidence for this very strong and cynical opinion. But then, that wouldnít be very scientific. So in the sprit of robustly testing your theory, may I suggest going out and looking for all the evidence you can which does NOT support your point-of-view? You might be gone some time. And be much less confident in your assertions when you come back.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 19:34
  #486 (permalink)  
419
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by LowNSlow View Post
Nuclear power for developing nations is a great ambition but Africa needs electricity now as espoused here.
I would say that what Africa needs more than electricity is a decline in the annual population growth.
Cut the population and the demand for electricity, food, medicine etc will all fall.

As it currently stands, just about every African country has far higher population growth than most European countries and this is something that is quite simply, unsustainable in the long run.
419 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 19:56
  #487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by 419 View Post
I would say that what Africa needs more than electricity is a decline in the annual population growth.
Cut the population and the demand for electricity, food, medicine etc will all fall.

As it currently stands, just about every African country has far higher population growth than most European countries and this is something that is quite simply, unsustainable in the long run.
So “Africa” should reduce its population, reduce its demand for products, reduce its economic volume, and thereby not look forward to the riches we have enjoyed? Does that mean the post-industrial nations can carry on being smug about their birth rates, even as they face demographic problems of sustainability and are, per capita, the true consumers of both resources and high emission producers?

Can’t see your solution going down well in “Africa”. On the other hand, at least we would still be able to sit on our arses and whistle.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 20:05
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by 419 View Post
I would say that what Africa needs more than electricity is a decline in the annual population growth.
How do you suggest that will happen?
Cut the population and the demand for electricity, food, medicine etc will all fall.
Cut the population. How do you propose to do that?

As it currently stands, just about every African country has far higher population growth than most European countries and this is something that is quite simply, unsustainable in the long run.
So it's OK for Europeans to choose their birth rate but not Africans. That's all rather superior!

Europe has an highter average population density than Africa. Perhaps we should cut the population in Europe. Where would you like to start?
Islandlad is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 20:50
  #489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by Islandlad View Post
How do you suggest that will happen?

Cut the population. How do you propose to do that?


So it's OK for Europeans to choose their birth rate but not Africans. That's all rather superior!

Europe has an highter average population density than Africa. Perhaps we should cut the population in Europe. Where would you like to start?
I would say that apart from the Catholic Church, the civilized world, for the want of a better term, the members thereof have mostly chosen to self limit the number of children, mainly by financial choice/some form of selfishness as to not really wanting children, although the latter are in the minority.
The need to have many children in the past to have a chance of at least one or two survive is long past, we appear to be self regulating at this point.
How we transfer that to Africa et al is another matter.


fltlt is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 22:55
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 67
There was a time when high birth rates and high death rates combined to give relatively low rates of population growth. For a century or more we have seen a pattern of , first, a fall in death rates (better sanitation, better medicine, better nutrition). The immediate effect was of course an acceleration in population growth. But long-term economic and social advances duly produced lower birth rates and eventually lower (even negative) population growth.

These developments were not simultaneous, occurring first in Europe, then parts of Asia, then Latin America. The big exception is Africa, where continued relatively high birth rates and longer life expectancy have led to sustained high population growth. One factor behind this is the absence of good Government social safety nets, which means that extended families and having plenty of children and grandchildren are the dominant source of social support.
Incidentally, high or low birth rates seem to have little to do with Roman Catholicism, if one looks at trends in traditionally Catholic Southern Europe and Latin America. If you want to curb population growth in Africa one essential is for real incomes to grow. Of course high population growth makes such growth all the more difficult. But this corner has been turned in much of Asia.
Economics101 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 23:01
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by fltlt View Post
I would say that apart from the Catholic Church, the civilized world, for the want of a better term, the members thereof have mostly chosen to self limit the number of children, mainly by financial choice/some form of selfishness as to not really wanting children, although the latter are in the minority.
The need to have many children in the past to have a chance of at least one or two survive is long past, we appear to be self regulating at this point.
How we transfer that to Africa et al is another matter.
Look at some council estates in the U.K. They have never heard of population control, but maybe thatís because they get paid by the state for every child they have.
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 00:21
  #492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by highflyer40 View Post
Look at some council estates in the U.K. They have never heard of population control, but maybe thatís because they get paid by the state for every child they have.
Financial fornication!
fltlt is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 04:35
  #493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 962
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I agree with the point he's trying to make, which is that the extremists in the climate change movement are essentially nutters. The problem I have is that he's opted to try and mislead. The problem is a global one, so what matters isn't the way that developed nations are behaving, in the main, it's very clear that, despite the efforts of some developed nations there is still an unacceptable increase in global CO2 emissions. The likes of XR are aiming their rhetoric in the wrong direction - they should clearly be targeting all the nations that are doing very little to control the growth in emissions.

He's deliberately chosen to be highly selective, and has cherry picked the data he's chosen to highlight, in order to make his point. That's just handing a gift to the likes of XR, who, like many other people will see straight through his subterfuge and so it seems likely that he'll just be ignored or discredited, with his key message about climate change extremism being lost. FWIW, he has a long history of peddling this take on things, and as above, he's neither a scientist or an environmentalist, he's really just another writer trying to promote and sell another book. Doesn't seem to have changed much since the article he wrote 15 years ago, either: http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/tissa/file...nmentalism.pdf

As it happens I agree with his position on nuclear power, and would like nothing more than to see something like the rapid development of smaller, safer, faster to build, distributed power plants, rather like the Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor idea. I'm less convinced by his arguments supporting natural gas use, primarily because continuing to invest in gas power generation will just create an ongoing global market for burning gas. Far better that we invest in alternative power generation and storage technologies, so they come down in price and become affordable to use in developing nations.
I agree.

But my question regarding his statement and your graph stands.
currawong is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 05:43
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by fltlt View Post
I would say that apart from the Catholic Church, the civilized world, for the want of a better term, the members thereof have mostly chosen to self limit the number of children, mainly by financial choice/some form of selfishness as to not really wanting children, although the latter are in the minority.
The need to have many children in the past to have a chance of at least one or two survive is long past, we appear to be self regulating at this point.
How we transfer that to Africa et al is another matter.
It's 2020. Is Africa uncivilized? Has Africa ever been uncivilized? And who are the 'et als'?
Islandlad is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 05:56
  #495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by Economics101 View Post
There was a time when high birth rates and high death rates combined to give relatively low rates of population growth. For a century or more we have seen a pattern of , first, a fall in death rates (better sanitation, better medicine, better nutrition). The immediate effect was of course an acceleration in population growth. But long-term economic and social advances duly produced lower birth rates and eventually lower (even negative) population growth.

These developments were not simultaneous, occurring first in Europe, then parts of Asia, then Latin America. The big exception is Africa, where continued relatively high birth rates and longer life expectancy have led to sustained high population growth. One factor behind this is the absence of good Government social safety nets, which means that extended families and having plenty of children and grandchildren are the dominant source of social support.
Incidentally, high or low birth rates seem to have little to do with Roman Catholicism, if one looks at trends in traditionally Catholic Southern Europe and Latin America. If you want to curb population growth in Africa one essential is for real incomes to grow. Of course high population growth makes such growth all the more difficult. But this corner has been turned in much of Asia.
Please explain how that differs from Europe?

Children and Grand Children are the ONLY source of social support.

Economics 101 Economics 000

Originally Posted by highflyer40 View Post
Look at some council estates in the U.K. They have never heard of population control, but maybe thatís because they get paid by the state for every child they have.
A mixed message in there. How did you pay for your kids? If you had less that 3 children you are destroying the country as you would see it.

Last edited by Islandlad; 2nd Jul 2020 at 06:12.
Islandlad is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 06:03
  #496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 90

Extinction Rebellion is trying to take the world down a very unpleasant path.

Only facts will stop them!
Islandlad is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 06:48
  #497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4DME
Posts: 1,946
Originally Posted by 419 View Post
I would say that what Africa needs more than electricity is a decline in the annual population growth.
Cut the population and the demand for electricity, food, medicine etc will all fall.

As it currently stands, just about every African country has far higher population growth than most European countries and this is something that is quite simply, unsustainable in the long run.
Media quoted 70,000 births in the UK since lockdown and probably many more in production due to lockdown, so we here in the UK need to slow the birth rate down somehow.
N707ZS is online now  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 07:39
  #498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 566
Originally Posted by N707ZS View Post
Media quoted 70,000 births in the UK since lockdown and probably many more in production due to lockdown, so we here in the UK need to slow the birth rate down somehow.
Luckily that will be offset to some extent by the increase in death rate due to CoVid19
Harley Quinn is online now  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 08:02
  #499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,868
Originally Posted by N707ZS View Post
Media quoted 70,000 births in the UK since lockdown and probably many more in production due to lockdown, so we here in the UK need to slow the birth rate down somehow.
I think you may be misnterpreting media reports. In an average month (pre-Covid) there are about 60,000 births in the UK.

Forget a lockdown baby boom: 75,000 fewer births are expected
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 10:04
  #500 (permalink)  
419
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by Torquetalk View Post
So “Africa” should reduce its population, reduce its demand for products, reduce its economic volume, and thereby not look forward to the riches we have enjoyed? Does that mean the post-industrial nations can carry on being smug about their birth rates, even as they face demographic problems of sustainability and are, per capita, the true consumers of both resources and high emission producers?

Can’t see your solution going down well in “Africa”. On the other hand, at least we would still be able to sit on our arses and whistle.
Did I state that?
No. You are totally changing what I did state to try to make a point.
What I actually stated was that Africa needs is a decline in the annual population growth rate, something that is not reducing the population, simply increasing it at a lower rate than is currently happening.
If their infrastructure and finances can't cope with the current increase, what's wrong with attempting to limit that increase until such time as it can be accommodated?


Originally Posted by Islandlad View Post
How do you suggest that will happen?

Cut the population. How do you propose to do that?


So it's OK for Europeans to choose their birth rate but not Africans. That's all rather superior!

Europe has an highter average population density than Africa. Perhaps we should cut the population in Europe. Where would you like to start?
Another poster who reads what they want rather than what was actually written.
I did not say anything about cutting the population, simply limiting the increase in population.
As to your question "how do you propose to do that"? education and contraception would be a good start.

What's "rather superior" about expecting a person, country or continent to live within their means?
Yes, Europe has a higher population density than Africa but in general, Europe has the infrastructure, food and finances to cope with the higher population density.
419 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.