Tip Jar

Showing posts with label The Age of Lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Age of Lies. Show all posts

2/03/2013

The Age of Lies-The population bomb

Below is and excellent article by Johnathan Last in the WSJ where he points to some very unsettling facts about American population growth and possible solutions. One statistic that caught my attention is when he notes:
The fertility rate is the number of children an average woman bears over the course of her life. The replacement rate is 2.1. If the average woman has more children than that, population grows. Fewer, and it contracts. Today, America's total fertility rate is 1.93, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; it hasn't been above the replacement rate in a sustained way since the early 1970s.

The first thing that came to mind was what happened in the early 1970's?

Oh yeah Roe Vs. Wade


But even that does not truly explain where the U.S. is headed and why or the world for that matter.

How often do you hear that in sixty years it is projected that the global population will stabilize and then begin to decline? I doubt very few people know that, the reason that projection is not publicized is that too is a product of the Age of Lies. The Progressive agenda is built on the idea that man(kind) is incapable of taking care of itself and thus a need for an elitist class to "manage" things. This is why the myth of the population bomb and the need to manage it is so important  to the progressive agenda. The population "explosion" is a myth which is foisted on the public in order to promote all manners of progressive agenda and power grabs. It simply is not true, Mr Last points out below.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a progressive if there ever was one, famously said
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
In that one statement Justice Ginsberg codifies both the agenda and the evil of the progressive ideology, which to be fair most self proclaimed progressives do not even recognize that they are a party too.

 They are just "workers" who have been assimilated into hive of The Borg.



America's Baby Bust

The nation's falling fertility rate is the root cause of many of our problems. And it's only getting worse.

Johnathan V. Last

For more than three decades, Chinese women have been subjected to their country's brutal one-child policy. Those who try to have more children have been subjected to fines and forced abortions. Their houses have been razed and their husbands fired from their jobs. As a result, Chinese women have a fertility rate of 1.54. Here in America, white, college-educated women—a good proxy for the middle class—have a fertility rate of 1.6. America has its very own one-child policy. And we have chosen it for ourselves.

Forget the debt ceiling. Forget the fiscal cliff, the sequestration cliff and the entitlement cliff. Those are all just symptoms. What America really faces is a demographic cliff: The root cause of most of our problems is our declining fertility rate.

The fertility rate is the number of children an average woman bears over the course of her life. The replacement rate is 2.1. If the average woman has more children than that, population grows. Fewer, and it contracts. Today, America's total fertility rate is 1.93, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; it hasn't been above the replacement rate in a sustained way since the early 1970s.

The nation's falling fertility rate underlies many of our most difficult problems. Once a country's fertility rate falls consistently below replacement, its age profile begins to shift. You get more old people than young people. And eventually, as the bloated cohort of old people dies off, population begins to contract. This dual problem—a population that is disproportionately old and shrinking overall—has enormous economic, political and cultural consequences.

For two generations we've been lectured about the dangers of overpopulation. But the conventional wisdom on this issue is wrong, twice. First, global population growth is slowing to a halt and will begin to shrink within 60 years. Second, as the work of economists Esther Boserups and Julian Simon demonstrated, growing populations lead to increased innovation and conservation. Think about it: Since 1970, commodity prices have continued to fall and America's environment has become much cleaner and more sustainable—even though our population has increased by more than 50%. Human ingenuity, it turns out, is the most precious resource.

Low-fertility societies don't innovate because their incentives for consumption tilt overwhelmingly toward health care. They don't invest aggressively because, with the average age skewing higher, capital shifts to preserving and extending life and then begins drawing down. They cannot sustain social-security programs because they don't have enough workers to pay for the retirees. They cannot project power because they lack the money to pay for defense and the military-age manpower to serve in their armed forces.

There has been a great deal of political talk in recent years about whether America, once regarded as the shining city on a hill, is in decline. But decline isn't about whether Democrats or Republicans hold power; it isn't about political ideology at all. At its most basic, it's about the sustainability of human capital. Whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney took the oath of office last month, we would still be declining in the most important sense—demographically. It is what drives everything else.

If our fertility rate were higher—say 2.5, or even 2.2—many of our problems would be a lot more manageable. But our fertility rate isn't going up any time soon. In fact, it's probably heading lower. Much lower.

America's fertility rate began falling almost as soon as the nation was founded. In 1800, the average white American woman had seven children. (The first reliable data on black fertility begin in the 1850s.) Since then, our fertility rate has floated consistently downward, with only one major moment of increase—the baby boom. In 1940, America's fertility rate was already skirting the replacement level, but after the war it jumped and remained elevated for a generation. Then, beginning in 1970, it began to sink like a stone.

2/02/2013

The Age Of Lies-Alaska is melting


I once wrote that I ceased to be liberal when I realized that in order to maintain that ideology I had to continuously deny what I knew to be the truth. What we are witnessing now is not just the denial of truths, it is the redefinition of truth.

Evil is being recognized as good and good is being condemned as evil.

And it is everywhere and it is seeping into everything. 
From The Age Of Lies



Alaska is Melting

At the beginning of the year it was publicized and widely reported that the Alaska Climate Research Center using data from NOAA weather stations throughout Alaska had determined that temperatures in Alaska had dropped significantly over the past decade.
A new report from the research center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks reveals that the 49th state of the union has cooled by 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 2000. 
The drop is described as a 'large value for a decade,' in the academic paper 'The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska.'
This was not some idle speculation but as I said a widely reported throughout the scientific community and in the popular press worldwide.

As the story from the UK Daily Mail points out, a drop in temperatures of 2.4 degrees over a decade is significant and a decade worth of data is more than just a simple anomaly. The report's  own title calls the past decade a "cooling trend". The current climate science community will often use yearly or even seasonal anomalies to alarm the public and here we have an entire decade long trend of cooling.

 Furthermore we are not talking about some random decade but rather the last decade when global temperatures especially in the northern latitudes were prophesied to rise. But rather than rising it has been been proven using the "warmist' communities own records that temperatures in Alaska actually dropped significantly over the past decade. These findings have not been disputed.

 What may have happened in previous decades although possibly significant as well does not change the fact that the current climate in Alaska is experiencing a cooling trend. This is fact based on actual data and research, plain and simple. All of this was brought to the worlds attention in the first week of January 2013.

So why is it that the National Wildlife Federation at the end of January can issue a report which states the following ?(emphasis in original)
Alaska has warmed about twice as much as the continental United States and warming is severely altering the Arctic landscape including melting permafrost. In the face of this unprecedented warming, many uniquely polar habitats—like the sea ice that polar bears, seals, and walrus require to hunt—are shrinking fast.
In what time frame is this purported warming supposed to have occurred? Obviously they can not be referring to the most recent available data since again as has been widely reported, Alaska temperatures are decreasing. The NWF must simply be ignoring recent long term changes in Alaska's climate in order to make such a statement.

 The report from the Alaska Climate Research Center tells us that previous studies found that:
In general, the temperature has increased in Alaska since instrumental records are available. Stafford et al. [2] analyzed 25 Alaskan stations for the time period from 1949-1998 and found a mean annual temperature increase for all stations in the range of 1.0°-2.2°C,
So previous studies, using basically the same stations that this new study used, concluded that Alaskan temperatures had increased, at most, 2.2 degrees, at the end of the twentieth century since 1949. Why is the increase of temperatures over a 50 year period of 2.2 degrees somehow" unprecedented" while the decrease in temperatures of 2.4 degrees over 10 years seems not to be even acknowledged?

I would also point out that if both studies are correct, then the past ten years of cooling have wiped out the previous 50 years of warming.

I would suggest that the decade long "cooling trend" in Alaska is an inconvenient truth that does not fit into the "warmist" narrative. Therefore the National Wildlife Federation just ignore the most recent scientific data in order to promote their progressive agenda.

The Age of Lies.