Turigamot said:
LordOmnit said:
Turigamot said:
There's really no such thing as a global population problem. Scientists have explained this already.
What nonsense is this? And who are these crackpot scientists?
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2011/07/20/the_world_is_not_overpopulated_106247.html
http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/shout-box/19818-overpopulation-myth.html
When your source contains the quote:
Agriculture Information said:
For instance, Vice-President Al Gore and some scientists say population growth is causing global warming. But there is much disagreement in the scientific community about this. Seventy-nine scientists issued the "Leipzig Declaration" in 1995 saying "...There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about ... greenhouse warming ...."
I call baloney. This in fact seems to be a giant theme in anti-overpopulation 'studies':
http://sks.sirs.es.vrc.scoolaid.net/text-pdf/0000206962.pdf said:
Then there is ?global warming,? a propagandist?s paradise.
The gap between confi rmed relevant information on the one
hand and proposed political responses to it on the other is
mind-boggling?and you aren?t going to fi nd the facts on
page one. But you will fi nd them in abundance with just a
bit of looking. I?ll mention just one point. The Kyoto Accords
call for measures that, depending how thoroughly they
are implemented, will carry price tags running to trillions.
Yet fifty years of Kyoto-mandated Spartanism will yield an
expected reduction in global temperatures of only about
0.1 degree Celsius. What?s the point, especially when such
global warming as has been confi rmed so far has been good
for humanity, for example by extending northern growing
seasons?
Now I'm not saying that I believe that the
sole cause of global warming is anthropogenic, I'm saying that
I do not have the necessary credentials to honestly differ from the opinions of specialists in that field. The anthropogenic hypothesis
is the scientific consensus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus]. I admit that, a few years back, I was deeply sceptical about the anthropogenic hypothesis. I even admit that my pre-med chemistry teacher, a very highly qualified professor, was sceptical too. However, it dawned on me that denying the scientific consensus here makes about as much sense as saying to your physician next time s/he says you need a specific medication "No! I'll take extract of arsenic instead!" Scientific consensuses exist precisely because numerous people better qualified to make the decision than you or me have decided that those hypotheses have greater credibility than their competing hypotheses.
EDIT OP: Do I get to make sure no-one I know or depend upon dies in the first option? If so then that one.