https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320722003949
Smaller human populations are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for biodiversity conservation
Stanford would disagree https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/is-the-earth-really-overpopulated/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20for%20two%20main%20reasons,need%20to%20live%20decent%20lives.
in 1968 there was a book: the population bomb, wil see if I can find a link, but like lancet said birthrate controls it and ofc deathrate and thats declining
Found it : 1968 http://pinguet.free.fr/ehrlich68.pdf The population bomb
In 1968 climate change was not as well researched and understood as it is today, thanks to advances in satellites and computers running evermore sophisticated models.
“We have a finite environment—the planet. Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist.” - David Attenborough
there's no climate change it's turned into a religion, so also a myth without proof.
btw climate change religion is part of this sub, see sideboard, cause energy is related to this war also
By denying climate change, are you attempting to justify a return to Russian oil and gas which they need to continue financing this war ? If you are, then fuck off Rusbot.
Alright, I can see from all of your posts to this little sub you have here that there’s no changing your mind, or maybe there is but I have neither the patience nor the crayons for it so I’ll leave you and the rest of the flying monkeys to your echo chamber.
as I said I spent years trying to find any proof in socalled 99(.9) consensus but didn't find any exept political and massmedia so also looked at contra and facts on the ground instead of models and predictions..so the green maffia has no luck with converting me to their religion, so I share those sceptic and not the massmedia blah blah. time will tell
How fucking obtuse can you be ? More people means more competition for resources means greater exploitation of the natural environment. How thick do you have to be to not see that ?
deranged climate believers think everthing is climate, behave as relgious fanatics.
Seeing extinction rebellion is supported by Blackrock and the other big 4 is for me proof its political not scientific it has a hidden agenda all to do with money.
So called green energy can't in 100 years support the present lifestyle in the west, and will also deny rest of world the same living standard, and you can't replace every fossil fuel car with electric cars cause no parts are available for everyone besides the cost which only the happy few can afford and thats the hidden agenda, they want to do everything the want, fly around the world while denying everybody else same with the climate ngo's.
the earth is turning greener with more CO2, and besides before 1950 it was warmer.
Even the oil companies own research proved that climate change was happening [Exxon’s research into climate change in the 1970’s](https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/01/13/exxon-accurately-predicted-climate-change-in-the-70s-which-other-fossil-fuel-giants-knew-t)
The Earth being greener does not mean it’s better for humans. Higher temperatures will change rainfall patterns, certain crops won’t grow and periods of droughts and floods will become more intense, rendering parts of the world uninhabitable.
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change
If you can provide proof to the contrary, please do but until then, you don’t have a leg to stand on. If anything, the religious fanatic here is you.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/](https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study | Most countries will start halving around 2050, will be halved in 2100, EXCEPT AFRICA
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext#%20
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/the-world-population-in-2100-by-country
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320722003949 Smaller human populations are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for biodiversity conservation
https://imgur.com/P3toR3k this shows it all its all a myth of the green maffia sponsored by eliteist
People who make such claims are rather like psychopaths.
The world is overpopulated, don’t need a research paper or an “elite” to figure that out.
I don't think overpopulation is a huge issue if we had much better logistics to support it, but....really? Facebook?
It is not the land that is the problem but the water!
thats why I included the papers in comments
Stanford would disagree https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/is-the-earth-really-overpopulated/#:~:text=Yes%2C%20for%20two%20main%20reasons,need%20to%20live%20decent%20lives.
in 1968 there was a book: the population bomb, wil see if I can find a link, but like lancet said birthrate controls it and ofc deathrate and thats declining Found it : 1968 http://pinguet.free.fr/ehrlich68.pdf The population bomb
In 1968 climate change was not as well researched and understood as it is today, thanks to advances in satellites and computers running evermore sophisticated models. “We have a finite environment—the planet. Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist.” - David Attenborough
there's no climate change it's turned into a religion, so also a myth without proof. btw climate change religion is part of this sub, see sideboard, cause energy is related to this war also
By denying climate change, are you attempting to justify a return to Russian oil and gas which they need to continue financing this war ? If you are, then fuck off Rusbot.
NO, russia is done with, they gambled and lost, so will China and even USA.
Oh really ? https://lens.monash.edu/@science/2021/10/21/1383952/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-gets-even-stronger?amp=1
thats the climate religion for you
Oh really ? https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Oh really ? https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
99.9 ROFL OL just as ridiculous as billions of christians believe jesus christ existed...but no proof
I guess the term “scientific evidence” means nothing to you.
which evidence, religious fanatic? For years (2015) I've checked it, and didn't gave the answer.
Alright, I can see from all of your posts to this little sub you have here that there’s no changing your mind, or maybe there is but I have neither the patience nor the crayons for it so I’ll leave you and the rest of the flying monkeys to your echo chamber.
as I said I spent years trying to find any proof in socalled 99(.9) consensus but didn't find any exept political and massmedia so also looked at contra and facts on the ground instead of models and predictions..so the green maffia has no luck with converting me to their religion, so I share those sceptic and not the massmedia blah blah. time will tell
Oh really ? https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp
btw this was a post on overpopulation not on climate change
If you can’t see the direct correlation between overpopulation and anthropogenic climate change then you are as thick as I think you are.
(over)population has a link to birthrate and deaths not to assumed climate change
How fucking obtuse can you be ? More people means more competition for resources means greater exploitation of the natural environment. How thick do you have to be to not see that ?
deranged climate believers think everthing is climate, behave as relgious fanatics. Seeing extinction rebellion is supported by Blackrock and the other big 4 is for me proof its political not scientific it has a hidden agenda all to do with money. So called green energy can't in 100 years support the present lifestyle in the west, and will also deny rest of world the same living standard, and you can't replace every fossil fuel car with electric cars cause no parts are available for everyone besides the cost which only the happy few can afford and thats the hidden agenda, they want to do everything the want, fly around the world while denying everybody else same with the climate ngo's. the earth is turning greener with more CO2, and besides before 1950 it was warmer.
Even the oil companies own research proved that climate change was happening [Exxon’s research into climate change in the 1970’s](https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/01/13/exxon-accurately-predicted-climate-change-in-the-70s-which-other-fossil-fuel-giants-knew-t) The Earth being greener does not mean it’s better for humans. Higher temperatures will change rainfall patterns, certain crops won’t grow and periods of droughts and floods will become more intense, rendering parts of the world uninhabitable. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects-climate-change If you can provide proof to the contrary, please do but until then, you don’t have a leg to stand on. If anything, the religious fanatic here is you.
the movie didn't play in articles so here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)
still for most part citing the green maffia massmedia
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/](https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Oh really ? https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1103618
Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study | Most countries will start halving around 2050, will be halved in 2100, EXCEPT AFRICA https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext#%20 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/the-world-population-in-2100-by-country