Bring the hammer down - 'climate change deniers are dangerous' and being banished from The Conversation, page-1597

"Before anyone answers your questions, perhaps you should explain why you continue to deny the well established science of climate change? "

Can you demonstrate where I did as you allege?


"Also given that you have adopted that position why would your calculations mean anything since you do not believe that emissions of CO2 are the cause of climate change, if in fact you believe there is any climate change."

My rudimentary numerical line of questioning makes no reference, nor any inference, about the causal relationship between carbon emissions and any change in the earth's climate.

To suggest otherwise is either duplicitous or lacking in cognition.

Rather, what the answers from those rudimentary questions will demonstrate is that, if the desire exists to reduce global carbon emissions - to whatever, and any, beneficial ends - then the sheer weight of numbers involved in the arithmetic phenomenon of a big number becoming exponentially bigger dwarfing a small number getting linearly smaller means that a darn sight more than than merely reducing carbon emissions in the developing world is going to need to happen to stop, let alone reverse, the problem.

For context, here are some estimates that I think might reasonably serve as a potential central scenario from which to discuss the issue in bit more depth, and with a tad more intellectual plasticity than the mere dismissive catch-all mantra of, "The Science is Proven and Anyone Who Asks Any Pointed Questions About It Is An Idiot":


ASSUMPTIONS:

Population - Current
Developing World = 1.0bn
Under-Developed and Developing World = 7.0bn

Population - 2050
Developing World = 1.0bn
Under-Developed and Developing World = 10.0bn

Per Capita Carbon Emissions - Current:
Developing World = 100 units (base)
Under-Developed and Developing World = 10 units (one-tenth of current Developed World levels

Per Capita Carbon Emissions - 2050:
Developing World = 50 units (i.e., 50% reduction)
Under-Developed and Developing World = 20 units (one-fifth of current Developed World levels, or 40% Developed World levels in 2050)

Based on the above input assumptions, as the table below indicates:

1.) Total carbon emissions from the Developed World will have been reduced by 50% (a function of static population combined with 50% per capita reduction)

2.) Total carbon emissions from the Underdeveloped and Developing World will have increased by an amount in excess of 180% (43% increase in population combined with 100% increase in per capita emissions)

3.) TOTAL GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONS will have increased by more than 45%




Of course, while the beauty of such simple exercises is exactly their simplicity, by their nature they should be considered to be indicative, without any claim being made about their prescription.

With that said, feel free to point out where the arithmetic is incorrect, or the assumptions are flawed to the point that the exercise fails its indicative, but non-prescriptive, mandate.

In other words, feel free to try to disprove the arithmetic axiom of:

Big numbers becoming exponentially bigger dwarf the effect small numbers becoming linearly smaller.

..