The per capita statistic is useless and misleading - especially for CO2 emissions

Substance or substantial circumstances? Can you be more clear?

Of course we can and of course we know what the line of obesity is. Did you seriously not know there is a way to calculate when somebody is considered obese?

*sigh*....Please try and pay attention. You obviously still aren't reading my posts and I don't have much more patience for this sort of farce.This is growing tiresome....I'm not arguing here about it's usefulness. I was responding to your comment that "attempting to use 'per capita' as a measure of CO2 indicates that Australia is far worse than anybody else." Which is about per capita being misleading, not it's use.

" All that indicates is that we use more CO2 per capita than other countries. That's it. It's not misleading at all, it's just that some people don't seem to understand the term or know the relevant information to keep it in perspective. This is not the same as per capita being misleading. This is ignorance."

I like how you say it's MY assumption....As if it hasn't been validated by those thousands of other people that agree it has a use

And please, you've been given pages of evidence that per capita has a use other than "to convolute the general public into believing whatever the politicians want you to think." . To argue that is the sole use of per capita is evidently wrong. Heck, do a google search and wipe the egg off your face.

Uhhh yeah, you were still wrong when you said it can't indicate standards of living. It most certainly can indicate such a thing. This is proven. I know you feel the need to argue every point because it hurts to admit you were wrong but this is getting ridiculous.

Yeah, what part of "can indicate" did you interpret as "must indicate"? Your scenario being possible doesn't invalidate the fact that it can still be a good indicator of standards of living.

 

Either does not really matter as you show that you really know why it is used.

Ok, seeing as how it is so easy to understand:
What is the level of obesity of the USA?
What is the level of obesity of Haitians?
What is the level of obesity of Samoans?
Are they all the same?
Let us make it simpler
What is the level of obesity of a 5' person?
What is the level of obesity of a 6' person?
Come on, who decides and creates the statistical information to provide you with your obesity count. Is it counted as the overall population or averaged over the population.
So far your national fat count has many questions to answer, but according to you, they are the same because of the word "obesity”. As you point out yourself, you have to remember the relevant information to the point. And that information is tainted by averaging anyway.

As stated

And you would be wrong. Let me point out that many here have already attempted to use this figure as you seem to be now, to say that if Australia was of the same population, then they emission of CO2 would be equal. That is misleading isn't it? So tell me you’re not arguing the term, but using misleading information is not the same as being a misleading term. Is that your argument?

LOL... You again are ASSUMING that others consider it a useful term the same way you do. Remember, the politicians consider it a very useful term, as you are demonstrating the exact purpose of being misled by average terms.

And search what? The average of anything to population? No, you are telling us all that the term is useful in showing the relative circumstances of anything between nations and yet it needs no substance.
The term has great use in fooling people into things and has done so here. So far, we have established it merely an indicator, but you ignore who the indicator is aimed at. As all economists will tell you, you cannot simple use the figures as a useful reference for anything of substance due to the lack of substance to create them.

Proven where? In your mind it is. Fact is, as pointed out before, due to the fact that small populace can have great standard of living and majority has low standard of living indicates the substantial failure of the statistic to account for variance in the population.

LOL... So in other words you are now submitting to the fact that, as a useful indicator, it is simply misleading because it does not indicate anything. However, it could indicate something? So, it is a good indicator of what the standard of living COULD be?

In otherwords it does not indicate anything, only what could be? How useful is that, indicating an assumption.

 

Alright, you can call it "redundant", if it makes you feel better.

 

lol...You really are clueless about this.

"People are considered obese when their body mass index (BMI), a measurement obtained by dividing a person's weight in kilograms by the square of the person's height in metres, exceeds 30 kg/m2.[3]"

If Australia was the same population as where? I haven't made any such claim that I'm aware of so I don't know how to answer your question.

In your scenario, the per capita emissions statistics would only be misleading if you didn't understand the term or were unaware of the relevant facts concerning other country's net emissions. Another thing is that the people who deal with these issues are aware of these facts and the flaws with using per capita and so aren't mislead at all; so what is the point of your argument? Really your whole problem seems to be with political spin of per capita statistics and you just appear to be venting your rage for this by attacking the term per capita itself. Same goes for dumb and aussie. You are all suffering from the same symptoms

lol...You really need to read the thread again. Slower this time. I've posted numerous examples of articles from actual experts that outline the use and usefulness of the term per capita. Not to mention it's common sense that a lot of people approve/find it useful considering it's so widely used in the world today. This argument is getting more and more absurd as it goes on

....Wow, you really struggle to maintain context throughout a discussion.

Go search for a use per capita has other than "to convolute the general public into believing whatever the politicians want you to think."

Strawman. I never said "the term is useful in showing the relative circumstances of anything between nations and yet it needs no substance." (wow you are an extremely awkward writer) ...And even if I had, it wouldn't matter because it would still have a use. You cannot win this argument. The position that per capita is unequivocally useless and misleading is untenable. How you people have managed it for 10 pages is an extraordinary feat.

LOL. Proven where? How about in this thread that you obviously haven't read. Unfortunately I can't be bothered repeating myself to you anymore right now.....And yeah, that is a fact, but again, this does not refute the other fact that GDP per capita can indicate standards of living. You keep repeating these non-arguments...It's getting us nowhere.

Slow down when you type next time, please. You have terrible syntax and that hardly made sense.

This is another non-argument. Yeah, okay, lets use the scenario you used in the previous post: " If 90% of the population is living in the streets( you know POOR) and 10% have such a great standard of living that it shows an increase “per Capita” then how can one say that the standard of living has raised? But YOU assume it has."

Obviously this is a case of per capita being misleading. Does this mean it is always the case? No. Does this mean per capita cannot be an indicator of standards of living? No.

 

So? How have the figures been tabulated? That has been the question. YOU assume they have all been tabulated by that formula. However, it is not that simple is it?

And I thought you were the leading knowledge of PER CAPITA understanding as you continue to proclaim. By averaging whatever you want against the population, you are trying to create a level playing field for the figures in an attempt to compare the two nations. This means that if you increase the population of the lesser country to the same level it should indicate the difference in levels as attempted demonstration of the figures. The fact that this discounts any other influence upon the very subject matter that created the figures show it is simply misleading to the realities.

LOL... So perhaps you could consider the fact that attempting to use it to politically sway the population to agree with your stance on a political forum, it is a political argument. You seem to want to jump between pedantic terms when it suites you and then jump back to whatever you want when it does not. So far you have claimed to show examples of many things, but you simply posted couple articles and expect everybody else to do your study for you.

Yes, so widely used by who? Oh I forget, it is such a useful term, isn't it? Many claims do not make a term any more useful than another. Pretending you know all ‘the relevant facts concerning other country's net emissions.’ So you agree that if the facts are not present, then it is misleading?

No, I have maintained context, it is you who have attempted to stray.

I must say, the strawman argument is not convincing anybody that you have given any thought to what you are trying to claim.

Oh so, if you argue something that is incorrect it is meaningless because your position( which jumps about so much) is so strong.
But you have not even given the slightest indication of how the term is useful, and you claim to understand exactly how it is used, yet you have no idea what the figures are used to compare. It is you who presumes the figures are unequivocally useless.
It is funny, that is you who has continued to attempt to build a straw house claiming that you have posted evidence of how the figures disputed are great indicators. BUT you actually cannot refute the OP over this, because the misleading of the per capita term, so perhaps instead of looking to everybody else, look in the mirror.

LOL… Again it is you who is repeating. So far you agree and then you disagree. Make up your mind.

LOL… get your head out of the sand, it is always that way. Maybe not so skewed, but it is that way. Otherwise, nobody would need to average out the system using 'per capita'. As you stated, it COULD indicate the living stands given ‘all things being equal’, but more to point as it shows what COULD BE the living standard.

If you cannot read perhaps you should consult others. Which is the use of the term, for the lazy understanding of a population and not the real understanding of the situation.

 

How have the obesity figures been tabulated?

The only fact I would need to know to not be mislead by that is that per capita means per head and therefore doesn't reflect our net emissions in comparison to other countries. Would I be wrong to think we probably use more emissions per person than other countries from this statistic? How have I been mislead?

Actually I never figured out what you were trying to say there in the first place as you sometimes have a very bizarre syntax. I could ask a few questions to try and clear this up but I honestly can't be bothered.

The OP has been refuted in the real world by the fact that per capita is used and accepted as having a use. Seriously, I shouldn't have to say more than that. Your argument is so obviously wrong I can't help but laugh at the conviction you have of being right.

Uhh yeah, I agreed because what you said was inconsequential.

......You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of per capita. It's not supposed to give you the "real understanding of the situation", it's just an indicator.

 

Oh yeah, if I can give you one example of you being wrong do you promise to ****?

 

Still flogging that poor old redundant, dead horse, I see.

 

That is the important fact you do not know, isn't it? You assume that it is the same, but your do not know.

And you made up the scenario.

Really? So tell me, how do you compare the statistic to another country of different size and population if all you need to know is that emissions on average is higher than that country? Use of the statistic is for that exact purpose.
NOT an assumption of ‘emissions are higher per person’, but that given ' all things being equal' emissions will be greater (which is what the figure is designed to be used for). This is clearly untrue, as it does not account for the fact of who is actually creating the emissions.

E.G. If only 10% of the Chinese populations are creating 22% of the emissions and 90% of the Australian population is creating 1.5% of the emissions. As population is increased the emissions would be far less than the per capita once the Australian population reaches the same size population. Also with the increasing wealth of china the size of the Emissions populace will grow thus increasing emissions assuming the wealth is carried to the remainder of the population.

So does this statistic take this into account?...NO
Does the statistic include any alternative understanding of how the emissions are effect due to changes in policy?...No
Does it account for advancement in technology?...No
No so far it only makes you assume that as a comparison figure (which is exactly what it is used for) that Australia is creating Emissions greater than China. Would that be right?

Typically of your style, pretend you are incapable of comprehension to attempt to justify your problem of inability to construct a useful use for the 'per capita' statistic.
Let me make it simpler for you: 'per capita' has many uses, such as designing houses(height of doors and such) but it still has limited use in politics, as it is misleading, due entirely to the fact it does not need any substance

LOL... the OP is refuted for pedantic reason? LOL... the OP has not been refuted at all. That is like saying that cats are pets because dogs are...LOL. The fact that at no time have you actually understood how the statistic is used and yet you pretend the 'oh so it is right because you are wrong'. The statistic is an attempt to convolute you into believing that Australia is far worse than China in their emissions because of this figure. And you fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Oh, before you try and pretend you did not

So, averaging something to compare to another average of something is inconsequential? LOL... that is what you claim is legitimate and now it is inconsequential…LOL

I do not misunderstand the use of the term? But I am not the one claiming to be a perfectly justifiable statistic for anything of consequence...YOU are. You believe it indicates what COULD BE not what really is... yet you believe that the term is perfect to show justification of a problem, because the real figures do not support the stance.

As stated, If Australian's emissions were so bad as to put it way above another country, averaging would not be necessary, would it?

 

No...LOL

 

Then I'm done here. Obviously you aren't here to listen. You keep saying nothing has been refuted but that is completely wrong. Per capita has proven to be useful in economic planning etc. Yeah, it has it's flaws, but your whole argument depends on you proving per capita to be useless in every single way which, as PROVEN by real world evidence, is wrong.

/thread

/thread

 

Obviously, I am listening as I have continued to point at your flip flopping as to the useful understanding of the ‘Per Capita’ on emissions. You continue to proclaim Pedantic and then attempt to justify, by saying if it is used somewhere it is useful. OR that if it is widely used it is useful.

So Far, no evidence of real world usage of economic of economic planning, only your say so. But we are all wrong because it does have uses.

LOL… Get it right, I say YOU have refuted nothing.

LOL… Proven economic planning...LOL Per capita is not used for economic planning at all. As far as the economy goes it is pure and simply used to compare different sized economies to one and another. Or do you consider that planning the amount of taxes per capita is decent enough to assume the tax income of the government? LOL… isn’t that such a poor example, the government has already shown that it is a completely inept way of economic planning, if you consider that is what they did with the mining tax…lol
It is used to attempt to indicate something in general terms. What it does, is allow people such as you to assume anything they believe with the information they have or wish to use.

LOL... So it is pedantic and not the useless and misleading use of the OP...LOL

My argument only depends on how relevant the information actually is, Not if the term is useful or not. That is your measure of the usefulness of the statistic, which as you so generously point out is FLAWED.

As the information is irrelevant, as it assumes much of the interpretation of the particular reader, it is misleading to attempt to use such figures in any substantial way.

If you wanted an English debate, perhaps you could have said that, but the OP pointed directly at the emissions of one country compared to another and you attempted to skew the debate to your understanding. Fact is as illustrated on so many pages are, you really have no idea how to use the ‘per capita’ statistic for anything meaningful.

You proclaim that everybody is wrong due to the fact it is used without even understanding for what it is used. You claim it is an indicator that COULD show something, but this is evidence it is used for economic planning. Because the term COULD have meaning, you decided that all are wrong but you.

 

WOW Gary

You tore Lep's arguement to pieces.

 

Per capita is the only logical measure. DD seems to think that china should drop its standard of living based on overall output. It is such an idiotic argument to not base co2 output on a per capita basis. If Australia were one of the lowest emitters per capita then, there would be a more plausible argument. If we expect to maintain our standard of living which is measured by Co2 output, bloody china has as much right to develop and maintain this standard. It is such a stupid argument to not consider this. Australia needs to demonstrate that it can drop its per capita output, which would put pressure on china(maybe). Gillard is trying to change this and needs to be applauded for the effort.

 

My head hurts!

 

It's a little bit to take in i am sure, but confident you will grasp it.

 

Can you please point out exactly where i said this????????

FFS you dont understand what the per capita statistic is all about do you???

Can you explain to me what the below per capita staistics are telling you?????

WTF are you talking about Australia has 23 coal fired power staitions

China has 1370 coal fired power stations

Per capita is about as useful as dividing the leaves on the gum tree outside my house by the population of Australia what dose it tell me about the tree or the population.

Our standard of living is not determined by our CO2 output???

I have no objections to China making their country a better place for their citizens, i have never said anything of the sort.

Let me tell you a little secrect Australia only emitts 1.5% of all manmade CO2 emissions.

China emitts 22% of all manmade CO2 emissions.

If Australia just suddenly stopped her CO2 emissions today it wouldn't impact on the worlds emissions that much, whether we do or dont doen't really have any bearing.

Total manmade CO2 emissions are 30,000,000,000 (thats 30 billion)

1.5% of 30,000,000,000 = 450,000,000 million

450,000,000 / 30,000,000,000 = 0.015%

Thats how much Australia contributes to manmade CO2

Now out of 100 will 0.015% really make any difference???

Gillard has enslaved us to her CEO's and elite friends through the most expensive carbon tax on the planet.

 

So basically, IYO China should be allowed to continue to create more CO2 because they have lower standards of living and create far less CO2 "Per Capita'? As a 20% reduction would not lower the 'Per Capita' production of Australia's CO2 emissions to China's level. How do you think Gillard would be pressuring China?

Forget that it produces 22% of the world’s CO2 emissions. If you considered the actual ramifications of using such statistics to promote your ideology, you are actually granting the right for China to create far more CO2 emissions than they do at present. Sounds like a great idea, lower the rest of the world emissions and let one nation fill the gap.
No wonder Labor is full of fools, their support base seems incredibly stupid.

 

so what on earth are you saying? Should china stop all its Co2 output in the instance that climate change is undeniable. This is such a non sensicle argument. China has more people therefore logical that their emmissions are higher. Australia needs to play its part no matter what small percentage of output. It is only fair! It is stupid not to consider per capita output no matter how you look at it. If Australia's per capita output were lower, I'd say, why on earth do we need to do anything, but this is clearly not the case.

 

.........

 

That's better. This makes more sense than the other garbage you post on this topic.