Radical Depopulation Of The Earth - The Solution To Mankind's Problems?

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

Ok, tell me about the medieval warming period ! I want to know about it and Hansen's aversion to using it in his data.

well you could start here;


Broecker
Science 23 February 2001: 1497
DOI: 10.1126/science.291.5508.1497,
then you could move on to one of the favorite tools of the internet intelligensia ..Google.

Mann in his infamous hockey stick diagram ignored it and the LIA and as Mann ,Hansen,Gore and all the other cultists are in the same boat,they have based their religion on this mis-information.Its nice,from an archaeological perspective,to see the remains of the Viking colonies and farms of the period emerge from the melting ice of Greenland.As regards the LIA,I am fascinated by the effects this had on my area of research and would refer you to Arctic Ireland Dickson D. ISBN 1-870132-85-8, a work of great detail on the effects of the LIA on Ireland.

But this is really silly,you were asked to produce references to your sources of information first so come along now,

[wmiddlemas]

Interesting, but there is some controversy as to whether this warming period was global or limited to the North Atlantic region. A later science article which I have included below states that the most significant warming period in the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century (basically what we are experiancing now and further that recent warmth is of greater significance than during the Medieval warming period. A chart showing temperature anomolies over the last 1200 years clearly shows the great difference in temperatures starting in the 20th century compared to the Medieval Warming period.



Science 10 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5762, pp. 841 - 844
DOI: 10.1126/science.1120514 Prev | Table of Contents | Next

REPORTS
The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years
Timothy J. Osborn* and Keith R. Briffa
Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period. Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK


The plot below, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007), NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Datashows numerous Northern Hemisphere paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions. The various studies differ in methodology, and in the underlying paleoclimate proxy data utilized, but all reconstruct the same basic pattern of cool "Little Ice Age", warmer "Medieval Warm Period", and still warmer late 20th and 21st century temperatures.

In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. For a summary of the latest available research on the nature of climate during the "Medieval Warm Period", please see Box 6.4 of the IPCC 2007 Palaeoclimate chapter. To learn more about the "Medieval Warm Period", please read this review published in Climatic Change, written by M.K. Hughes and H.F. Diaz. (Click here for complete review reference). Discussion of the last 2,000 years, including the Medieval Warm Period, and regional patterns and uncertainties, appears in the National Research Council Report titled "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years", available from the National Academy Press.

[imp]

wmiddlemas:

I don't need to cut your argument off at the pass. I'll accept everything you say about AGW, for the sake of argument. That still doesn't mean that government intervention is warranted. Especially the government intervention that you want, global population control. How do you see the vote on that going in Saudi Arabia or Iran? You are either advocating world war or you are advocating ceding the future of the planet to the middle east, where Muslims have some of the highest birth rates in the world (and aren't changing for a dhimmi like you).

You are separating the results of the policy from the intentions. A real conservative right winger like me knows that it is the results of a policy that matter, not the intentions.

[wmiddlemas]

All I am saying is that for starters, the developed world should avocate limiting population growth and initiate programs that would encourage countries with high birth rates to curb them. As has already been stated, countries with greater wealth seem to have lower birth rates so, of course, the elimination of poverty should continue to be a cornerstone in any program to reduce population growth (although realistically this goal will never be realized). Contraception education as well as free distribution of contraception devices i..e family planning should be at the core of any program. Of course this would be a direct contridiction to religious dogma for many throughout the world and would be be one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome, but over time relentless advocacy, education and inovative incentive could eventually make inroads against the prejudice and ignorance promoted by religious zealots. Curbing the human population on the planet is an essential ingrediant to combating global warming, contolling pollution which is currently out of control, conserving natural resources, achieving and distributing adequate food throughout the world. Less competition for scarce natural resources and a rise in prosperity of some of the more despartly poor, overpopulated countries will I think help stablize governments and reduce instances of war.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

Contraception education as well as free distribution of contraception devices i..e family planning should be at the core of any program. Of course this would be a direct contridiction to religious dogma for many throughout the world and would be be one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome.

As far as I am aware, many catholics just stop going to church during the years when they are relying upon contrception. My catholic friends have left me with the impression that it's all fine so long as you fully repent your sins. The catholics I know also seem to be fine with condoms and one of them has taken the morning after pill after a condom failure, although she refuses more long term anti-pregnancy drugs on religious grounds.

Anyone here know more about the relationships between contraception and religion? So far it seems to me that it would more be a matter of religious institutions trying to prevent the funding of voluntary services.

[spadlet]

P.S. non-penetrative sexual practices also exist.

[wmiddlemas]

That's probably true especially in the well developed countries. I live in Italy, and most Italian pretty much ignore some of the more archaic doctrines of the Catholic Church. That is the way it works until eventually the church modifies its doctrine to reflect the norms that people are following.

[wmiddlemas]

Originally Posted by spadlet

P.S. non-penetrative sexual practices also exist.

Yes, but not as effectively as condoms or pills I am sure.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

Yes, but not as effectively as condoms or pills I am sure.

erm...well they guarantee that you don't get pregnant because the male baby making stuff doesn't get an opportunity to come into contact with the female baby making stuff. So in that respect they are more effective as condoms have failure rates and I think that the pill does, the morning after pill certainly does. But there's alot of pressure from society in the UK to chose penetrative sex so in that respect condoms and the pill are more effective. If the religious leadred and the rest of society wanted to try and change those preconceptions however.....

[imp]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

That's probably true especially in the well developed countries. I live in Italy, and most Italian pretty much ignore some of the more archaic doctrines of the Catholic Church. That is the way it works until eventually the church modifies its doctrine to reflect the norms that people are following.

I am a catholic and the Catholic Church will NOT be modifying its teaching on contraception. It is the practices of "cafeteria Catholics" in Italy, who ignore the Church's ban on contraception, that are leading to that nation's decline.

Within a generation or two Italy will be a mostly Muslim nation that practices Sharia Law - let's see where you will get your condoms then.

Again, by asking the western world to embrace contraception, you are asking them to cede their national security to nations that bother to have children. Don't you understand Darwinism? - the nations that ignore policies promoting family planning will consume those nations that actually practice family planning. You are advocating suicide. No politician would support it. But your left wing friends may support it, until they get old and wise.