Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Population and Climate Change
Ihmotepp
Member Posts: 14,495
Mr. Martin added: “Progress on climate change is being seriously hampered by the widespread refusal to acknowledge the link between total greenhouse emissions and the sheer numbers of emitters. It’s time we abandoned this crazy taboo. Population growth is not a ‘given’ to be fatalistically accommodated but a major factor that requires tackling along with all the other factors that have so far monopolised the debate."
http://yubanet.com/world/Tackle-Population-Growth-to-Beat-Climate-Change.php
Unless population growth is addressed, Co2 emissions will continue to INCREASE rather than decrease. Some studies show that EVEN IF THE DEVELOPED WORLD CONSERVED BY 80 PERCENT, Co2 Emission continue to INCREASE not decrease at the current rate of population growth.
Why is population growth taboo on the subject of Climate Change?
You can conserve all you want, but unless you conserve to the point you're not using electricity and riding a bike to work which uses no electricity, Co2 emissions will INCREASE as Chinese and Indians continue to enter the 21st century and buy things like electric lights and electric can openers.
EVEN if you give these new entrants into civilization "green" light bulbs, the CO2 levels will increase, not decrease.
"Given how much less the average developing nation consumes per capita, the impact of a child born in the U.S., along with all his or her descendants, is more than 160 times that of a Bangladeshi child, the OSU research found. And the long-term impact of a Chinese child is less than one fifth the impact of a U.S.-born child. But as China, India and other developing nations hurtle toward prosperity, that is likely to change."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/carbon-emissions/
Comments
Someone needs to hurry up and start WWIII. The earth is soon exceedeing its' carrying capacity. And now you want 2+ BILLION Chinese and Indians to have a higher standard of living, closer to that of Americans? (yes we all know Americans ARE the most consuming/big-foot carbon laying/mushroom cloud laying abusers of the world. Do you know how many planet Earth's would be needed to supply the whole world if they lived like Americans? It's more than one, which we don't have...
Don't even get me started on the fresh water crisis either. I think the next major war will be fought over water, not oil.
Something has to give sooner or later.
WWIII is not necessary to control population. Developed nations have low birth rates. Look at the UK, Japan, and others. Under developed nations have high birth rates. It's a survival mechanism. More children means more chances one will be successful, help take care of you, help work on the farm since labor is cheap and machinery is expensive, etc.
The key is guiding corrupt nations with little or no democracy into the first world, populations will then naturally fall.
But it's silly to think you can conserve, conserve, conserve your way out of global warming and Co2 emissions. No matter how much you conserve, Co2 will rise if more nad more people breath it out of their lungs, and use even the most basic modern conveniences.
Unless you want to conserve to the point of going back to the stone age, where no one uses electricity.
WWIII is not necessary to control population. Developed nations have low birth rates. Look at the UK, Japan, and others. Under developed nations have high birth rates. It's a survival mechanism. More children means more chances one will be successful, help take care of you, help work on the farm since labor is cheap and machinery is expensive, etc.
The key is guiding corrupt nations with little or no democracy into the first world, populations will then naturally fall.
But it's silly to think you can conserve, conserve, conserve your way out of global warming and Co2 emissions. No matter how much you conserve, Co2 will rise if more nad more people breath it out of their lungs, and use even the most basic modern conveniences.
Unless you want to conserve to the point of going back to the stone age, where no one uses electricity.
It has nothing to do with that. We have Cheep cable Tv and the interwebs.
Go to alot of areas in the country 9 months after a major Blizzard hit and the Birth rate is Nuts.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
I agree with all your population control statements. Its on parallel with everything I learned in population resources class I took last year. But I still think the world needs a huge population dent such as: a giant war, disease, famine, etc... call me morbid, but I just don't think there is enough sex ed in 3rd/ 2nd world countries. Like you said, they have a lot of kids for pure survival chances, and increasing odds of family success. I don't know how 1st world countries are going to help 2nd and 3rd worlds. I was born in a 2nd world country and they are so damn corrupt. lol
the reason why there is a population boom in 3rd world countries is lack of jobs... therefore the poor, du eto boredom cant do anything but have sex and make babies
With so many people saying different things i really dont know what to believe anymore.
You guys may wana check out this video :www.youtube.com/watch
It simply says BS to global warming, by scientist. Instead, we are heading the other way, and very soon...
RIP Orc Choppa
I can't currently see your video (I'm at work on my lunch break). I'm aware a few scientists are global warming sceptics, but those scientists are often in the pay of the energy industry and are vastly outnumbered by scientists who believe in global warming.
What makes you thinking things are heading the other way? We've already observed ice-sheets shrinking, and we have already observed average temperatures increasing. So could you tell me - if you don't accept either of these, and you don't accept the output from computerised models of the climate, what would it take to convince you that climate change is a serious threat?
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
You know if every last human being on the Earth dies the caps are still going to melt. Again. And again. And again.
They'll refreeze and dig trenches half way down to the equator or more again, then melt.
The last time they melted they did so at about 100x the rate they are now.
Besides, before the last decent size melt, the northern europeans were unable to grow much of their own food and were forced raid the more prosperous regions of their world. Is that what you people want? A return of the vikings?
Nice work of fiction... you do realise the vikings were actually strongest just over a thousand years ago in the period known as the "Dark ages". I'm not aware of the slightest evidence that the polar caps melted during that period.
However, it's true that there has been large scale global warming in the distant past. But that was more a problem for the dinosaurs than the early humans, and it was much slower than the warming we are seeing today.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
2012, Mayan calendar, Roland Emmerich, John Cusack, check it out.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
I can't currently see your video (I'm at work on my lunch break). I'm aware a few scientists are global warming sceptics, but those scientists are often in the pay of the energy industry and are vastly outnumbered by scientists who believe in global warming.
What makes you thinking things are heading the other way? We've already observed ice-sheets shrinking, and we have already observed average temperatures increasing. So could you tell me - if you don't accept either of these, and you don't accept the output from computerised models of the climate, what would it take to convince you that climate change is a serious threat?
Current temp is rising. Models dont' mean crap, because they are based on predictions. Look at a child from ages 5-12 as it grows. You could use that information to predict that by age 30 the child will be 20 feet tall, but that doesn't happen. It's the same with most of the computer models. What will the Sun temperature be, and Sunspot activity be in 20-100 years? None of these scientists knows, so they can't make accurate predictions of Earth temperature.
The problem is that the Earth is probably warming from the Sun, just like it has many times in the past, and will probably cool because of the Sun, just like it has many times in the past. What part does burning fossil fuels play? Probably so tiny that it's irrelevant.
The problem with burning fossil fuels is not global warming. I think most advocates of man made global warming are using it for their real agenda, socialism, communism, the fight against "globalization, the idea that the first world should give all it's wealth to the corrupt third world because that would be more "fair", and things like that.
The real problem is fossil fuels are going to run out, or become scarce, and this will cause spikes in the cost of EVERYTHING, which wrecks the global economy. They have to be replaced, whether global warming is caused by them or not (and I think for the most part not).
If Global Warming is caused by Man, and that's what you are really concerned about, then why is there ZERO discussion from Global Warming alarmists about Population and how it contributes to Carbon output?
They will tell you EVERYTHING in the world must be done to stop Carbon output. Conserve energy, cut your thermostat down in the Winter, up in the Summer, use "green" lightbulbs, do cap and trade, etc., etc. But they NEVER discuss how rising population means you can NEVER reduce total Co2 output unless everyone on the planet returns to the Stone Age. Why is that?
The absolute truth is Global warming alarmists say unless we reduce total Co2 out put, the world is doomed. But even if you reduce consumption in places like the US by 80%, which isn't feasible, Co2 levels RISE with current populations increases and as Indians, Chinese, and others move into the 21st Century and get electricity and cars.
Why is the fact ignored?
Probably because reducing total Co2 output is not the real agenda.
Of course now one can predict the future with complete accuracy. However, that's completely missing the point of what the models do - they predict what will happen if the sun stays much the same as it's been for the last several hundred years. And at the moment, they're saying that if it does, then we'll be in trouble.
Could you show me your evidence that the sun is becoming hotter? For example, has a change in the brightness of the sun been measured by satellites? Or is it just something someone made up because they didn't want to face the facts?
Your post is also very odd - in your original post you seemed to accept human caused climate change as fact, but in your previous post you seek to cast doubt on it. If you really think that climate change is caused by the sun, then why are you arguing for a change to human populations? So which is it - what do you actually believe? Or are you just trying to look clever without doing anything difficult like research?
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
gotta love how the quacks have taken over. Population growth has been in decline for some time now and is expected to reach 0 by 2025.
member of imminst.org
Funny how we think we somehow deserve a stable global climate. This is not the case - climate has always shifted radically, and many more 'recent' species of the genus Homo since ergaster, especially us, have been able to adapt. We might not always enjoy the relatively cozy lifestyles we have now, but that's just how it is and, in my humble opinion, how it should be. Chances are pretty damn slim we'll manage to get ourselves exctinct and hell, even if we do, it'd be fun to see how the global ecology resets itself.
Would a quack be someone who turns up quoting figures and pretending to be authoritative without giving sources?
Both the UN and the US census bureau suggest world population will peak at roughly 9 billion by 2050. Of course, whether the world could actually support that much, in the face of climate change and diminishing resources, is an entirely different matter.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
I'd agree - the chances of human extinction are pretty remote. We're a very adaptive species. However, that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of scope for an awful lot of bad stuff to happen.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
The largest producer of CO2 is the ocean.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Water vapour.
Let me put it this way, Global Climate Change will be a better word compare to warming...
RIP Orc Choppa
Nice work of fiction... you do realise the vikings were actually strongest just over a thousand years ago in the period known as the "Dark ages". I'm not aware of the slightest evidence that the polar caps melted during that period.
However, it's true that there has been large scale global warming in the distant past. But that was more a problem for the dinosaurs than the early humans, and it was much slower than the warming we are seeing today.
I thought dinosaurs had a global cooling problem?
And evidence of 1000 years ago had much thicker caps that extended down toward the equator as they were in a so called mini ice age as believed by many scientist, the last official ice age was some 15,000 years ago or so
I can't currently see your video (I'm at work on my lunch break). I'm aware a few scientists are global warming sceptics, but those scientists are often in the pay of the energy industry and are vastly outnumbered by scientists who believe in global warming.
What makes you thinking things are heading the other way? We've already observed ice-sheets shrinking, and we have already observed average temperatures increasing. So could you tell me - if you don't accept either of these, and you don't accept the output from computerised models of the climate, what would it take to convince you that climate change is a serious threat?
Current temp is rising. Models dont' mean crap, because they are based on predictions. Look at a child from ages 5-12 as it grows. You could use that information to predict that by age 30 the child will be 20 feet tall, but that doesn't happen. It's the same with most of the computer models. What will the Sun temperature be, and Sunspot activity be in 20-100 years? None of these scientists knows, so they can't make accurate predictions of Earth temperature.
The problem is that the Earth is probably warming from the Sun, just like it has many times in the past, and will probably cool because of the Sun, just like it has many times in the past. What part does burning fossil fuels play? Probably so tiny that it's irrelevant.
The problem with burning fossil fuels is not global warming. I think most advocates of man made global warming are using it for their real agenda, socialism, communism, the fight against "globalization, the idea that the first world should give all it's wealth to the corrupt third world because that would be more "fair", and things like that.
The real problem is fossil fuels are going to run out, or become scarce, and this will cause spikes in the cost of EVERYTHING, which wrecks the global economy. They have to be replaced, whether global warming is caused by them or not (and I think for the most part not).
If Global Warming is caused by Man, and that's what you are really concerned about, then why is there ZERO discussion from Global Warming alarmists about Population and how it contributes to Carbon output?
They will tell you EVERYTHING in the world must be done to stop Carbon output. Conserve energy, cut your thermostat down in the Winter, up in the Summer, use "green" lightbulbs, do cap and trade, etc., etc. But they NEVER discuss how rising population means you can NEVER reduce total Co2 output unless everyone on the planet returns to the Stone Age. Why is that?
The absolute truth is Global warming alarmists say unless we reduce total Co2 out put, the world is doomed. But even if you reduce consumption in places like the US by 80%, which isn't feasible, Co2 levels RISE with current populations increases and as Indians, Chinese, and others move into the 21st Century and get electricity and cars.
Why is the fact ignored?
Probably because reducing total Co2 output is not the real agenda.
Ok, I also took this class called "Gobal Environmental Challenges" (last semester) and I tackled Global Warming because I think everyone else was afraid of that topic. Anyways, there is irrifutable evidence that this warming trend was indeed induced by human actions and consequences. (anthropogenic?) Google "Mauna Loa curve" and tell me since the 50's the carbon in the air has not increased, and is on an exponential curve upwards. If this doesn't stop in about 50 years the sea level will rise 10 to 20 feet. Aslo since early 1900's , records of weather station recording record lows/highs have showed a gradual increase. Also, if we stop all carbon producing activities, we will still have to deal with a lag effect - and temps will continue to rise. This international panel of scientists, climatologists, etc... have banded together to try to educate the world this is happening.
Who are you going to believe? The ultra rich oil companies that really control the world and can sway governments to thier will because they have that "cash cow milk money oil baby" -- take your mouth off the titty already... I'm selling my car next week and will start to ride a bike, walk, bus, and light rail it. gg If everyone did this they could really say "FUCK YOU" to the oil barrens.
Oh boy, once sea level rises...do you know how many new surf breaks will emerge from different reef breaks? - That Imma have to explore and claim as my own? MWHAHAHAHAHA!
I'd agree - the chances of human extinction are pretty remote. We're a very adaptive species. However, that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of scope for an awful lot of bad stuff to happen.
Yeah, humans are pretty damn arrogant as well too... huh? They are so arrogant, WE COULD be the first species on the face of the planet to make ourselves extict IF we don't get our shit together. This reminds me of Matrix quote for some reason lol... parasites. XD
But, are you willing to give up your Cadillac Escilade?
I can't currently see your video (I'm at work on my lunch break). I'm aware a few scientists are global warming sceptics, but those scientists are often in the pay of the energy industry and are vastly outnumbered by scientists who believe in global warming.
What makes you thinking things are heading the other way? We've already observed ice-sheets shrinking, and we have already observed average temperatures increasing. So could you tell me - if you don't accept either of these, and you don't accept the output from computerised models of the climate, what would it take to convince you that climate change is a serious threat?
Current temp is rising. Models dont' mean crap, because they are based on predictions. Look at a child from ages 5-12 as it grows. You could use that information to predict that by age 30 the child will be 20 feet tall, but that doesn't happen. It's the same with most of the computer models. What will the Sun temperature be, and Sunspot activity be in 20-100 years? None of these scientists knows, so they can't make accurate predictions of Earth temperature.
The problem is that the Earth is probably warming from the Sun, just like it has many times in the past, and will probably cool because of the Sun, just like it has many times in the past. What part does burning fossil fuels play? Probably so tiny that it's irrelevant.
The problem with burning fossil fuels is not global warming. I think most advocates of man made global warming are using it for their real agenda, socialism, communism, the fight against "globalization, the idea that the first world should give all it's wealth to the corrupt third world because that would be more "fair", and things like that.
The real problem is fossil fuels are going to run out, or become scarce, and this will cause spikes in the cost of EVERYTHING, which wrecks the global economy. They have to be replaced, whether global warming is caused by them or not (and I think for the most part not).
If Global Warming is caused by Man, and that's what you are really concerned about, then why is there ZERO discussion from Global Warming alarmists about Population and how it contributes to Carbon output?
They will tell you EVERYTHING in the world must be done to stop Carbon output. Conserve energy, cut your thermostat down in the Winter, up in the Summer, use "green" lightbulbs, do cap and trade, etc., etc. But they NEVER discuss how rising population means you can NEVER reduce total Co2 output unless everyone on the planet returns to the Stone Age. Why is that?
The absolute truth is Global warming alarmists say unless we reduce total Co2 out put, the world is doomed. But even if you reduce consumption in places like the US by 80%, which isn't feasible, Co2 levels RISE with current populations increases and as Indians, Chinese, and others move into the 21st Century and get electricity and cars.
Why is the fact ignored?
Probably because reducing total Co2 output is not the real agenda.
Ok, I also took this class called "Gobal Environmental Challenges" (last semester) and I tackled Global Warming because I think everyone else was afraid of that topic. Anyways, there is irrifutable evidence that this warming trend was indeed induced by human actions and consequences. (anthropogenic?) Google "Mauna Loa curve" and tell me since the 50's the carbon in the air has not increased, and is on an exponential curve upwards. If this doesn't stop in about 50 years the sea level will rise 10 to 20 feet. Aslo since early 1900's , records of weather station recording record lows/highs have showed a gradual increase. Also, if we stop all carbon producing activities, we will still have to deal with a lag effect - and temps will continue to rise. This international panel of scientists, climatologists, etc... have banded together to try to educate the world this is happening.
Who are you going to believe? The ultra rich oil companies that really control the world and can sway governments to thier will because they have that "cash cow milk money oil baby" -- take your mouth off the titty already... I'm selling my car next week and will start to ride a bike, walk, bus, and light rail it. gg If everyone did this they could really say "FUCK YOU" to the oil barrens.
Oh boy, once sea level rises...do you know how many new surf breaks will emerge from different reef breaks? - That Imma have to explore and claim as my own? MWHAHAHAHAHA!
I am curious, how much of your global environmental challenge course was based on the suns activities since 1950, our electro magnetic fields, the earths rotation, and the relation to the earth and other space objects? The problem with the data I have seen thus far, is that it is incomplete. If they are only using part of the equation to dolve the problem the answer cannot be correct.
This is not a matter of oil companies against the environment, it is a matter of determing what can or should be done to ensure that humans can sustain life on this planet. When people came after the chief of NASA when he spoke the honest truth, they didn;t want to hear it.
I can't currently see your video (I'm at work on my lunch break). I'm aware a few scientists are global warming sceptics, but those scientists are often in the pay of the energy industry and are vastly outnumbered by scientists who believe in global warming.
What makes you thinking things are heading the other way? We've already observed ice-sheets shrinking, and we have already observed average temperatures increasing. So could you tell me - if you don't accept either of these, and you don't accept the output from computerised models of the climate, what would it take to convince you that climate change is a serious threat?
Current temp is rising. Models dont' mean crap, because they are based on predictions. Look at a child from ages 5-12 as it grows. You could use that information to predict that by age 30 the child will be 20 feet tall, but that doesn't happen. It's the same with most of the computer models. What will the Sun temperature be, and Sunspot activity be in 20-100 years? None of these scientists knows, so they can't make accurate predictions of Earth temperature.
The problem is that the Earth is probably warming from the Sun, just like it has many times in the past, and will probably cool because of the Sun, just like it has many times in the past. What part does burning fossil fuels play? Probably so tiny that it's irrelevant.
The problem with burning fossil fuels is not global warming. I think most advocates of man made global warming are using it for their real agenda, socialism, communism, the fight against "globalization, the idea that the first world should give all it's wealth to the corrupt third world because that would be more "fair", and things like that.
The real problem is fossil fuels are going to run out, or become scarce, and this will cause spikes in the cost of EVERYTHING, which wrecks the global economy. They have to be replaced, whether global warming is caused by them or not (and I think for the most part not).
If Global Warming is caused by Man, and that's what you are really concerned about, then why is there ZERO discussion from Global Warming alarmists about Population and how it contributes to Carbon output?
They will tell you EVERYTHING in the world must be done to stop Carbon output. Conserve energy, cut your thermostat down in the Winter, up in the Summer, use "green" lightbulbs, do cap and trade, etc., etc. But they NEVER discuss how rising population means you can NEVER reduce total Co2 output unless everyone on the planet returns to the Stone Age. Why is that?
The absolute truth is Global warming alarmists say unless we reduce total Co2 out put, the world is doomed. But even if you reduce consumption in places like the US by 80%, which isn't feasible, Co2 levels RISE with current populations increases and as Indians, Chinese, and others move into the 21st Century and get electricity and cars.
Why is the fact ignored?
Probably because reducing total Co2 output is not the real agenda.
Ok, I also took this class called "Gobal Environmental Challenges" (last semester) and I tackled Global Warming because I think everyone else was afraid of that topic. Anyways, there is irrifutable evidence that this warming trend was indeed induced by human actions and consequences. (anthropogenic?) Google "Mauna Loa curve" and tell me since the 50's the carbon in the air has not increased, and is on an exponential curve upwards. If this doesn't stop in about 50 years the sea level will rise 10 to 20 feet. Aslo since early 1900's , records of weather station recording record lows/highs have showed a gradual increase. Also, if we stop all carbon producing activities, we will still have to deal with a lag effect - and temps will continue to rise. This international panel of scientists, climatologists, etc... have banded together to try to educate the world this is happening.
Who are you going to believe? The ultra rich oil companies that really control the world and can sway governments to thier will because they have that "cash cow milk money oil baby" -- take your mouth off the titty already... I'm selling my car next week and will start to ride a bike, walk, bus, and light rail it. gg If everyone did this they could really say "FUCK YOU" to the oil barrens.
Oh boy, once sea level rises...do you know how many new surf breaks will emerge from different reef breaks? - That Imma have to explore and claim as my own? MWHAHAHAHAHA!
I am curious, how much of your global environmental challenge course was based on the suns activities since 1950, our electro magnetic fields, the earths rotation, and the relation to the earth and other space objects? The problem with the data I have seen thus far, is that it is incomplete. If they are only using part of the equation to dolve the problem the answer cannot be correct.
This is not a matter of oil companies against the environment, it is a matter of determing what can or should be done to ensure that humans can sustain life on this planet. When people came after the chief of NASA when he spoke the honest truth, they didn;t want to hear it.
A big part of my argument I gave in class, from the non human standpoint was covering the topic of "natural variation" of the cosmos... ie: the eliptical orbit the earth has fluxes in and out, sun spots, temperature of the sun, The way the earth wobbles on its axis like a top, how close and far away the earth fluxes to the sun etc... all which in the billions of years of history of the earth might have been responsible for the coming and going of ice ages, contributed with greenhouse gases... meteor strikes, volcacnic activity,.. there is just too much. But it's not just from the 1950's, in fact it started around the industrial revolution... what 1800's into the 1900's.
Just maybe, human activity, and, along with natural variation BOTH play a role. Some of it we can control, others we cannot. And that was the biggest point I was trying to make in my 30 minute presentation I gave to my class at the end of the semester.
Since the industrial revolution, dirty fossil fuels are the main culprit. Coal, gasoline, jet fuel emissions from planes. etc.. you get the picture. So I agree, we as humans need to find a new cleaner, renewable energy source SOON.
I can't currently see your video (I'm at work on my lunch break). I'm aware a few scientists are global warming sceptics, but those scientists are often in the pay of the energy industry and are vastly outnumbered by scientists who believe in global warming.
What makes you thinking things are heading the other way? We've already observed ice-sheets shrinking, and we have already observed average temperatures increasing. So could you tell me - if you don't accept either of these, and you don't accept the output from computerised models of the climate, what would it take to convince you that climate change is a serious threat?
Current temp is rising. Models dont' mean crap, because they are based on predictions. Look at a child from ages 5-12 as it grows. You could use that information to predict that by age 30 the child will be 20 feet tall, but that doesn't happen. It's the same with most of the computer models. What will the Sun temperature be, and Sunspot activity be in 20-100 years? None of these scientists knows, so they can't make accurate predictions of Earth temperature.
The problem is that the Earth is probably warming from the Sun, just like it has many times in the past, and will probably cool because of the Sun, just like it has many times in the past. What part does burning fossil fuels play? Probably so tiny that it's irrelevant.
The problem with burning fossil fuels is not global warming. I think most advocates of man made global warming are using it for their real agenda, socialism, communism, the fight against "globalization, the idea that the first world should give all it's wealth to the corrupt third world because that would be more "fair", and things like that.
The real problem is fossil fuels are going to run out, or become scarce, and this will cause spikes in the cost of EVERYTHING, which wrecks the global economy. They have to be replaced, whether global warming is caused by them or not (and I think for the most part not).
If Global Warming is caused by Man, and that's what you are really concerned about, then why is there ZERO discussion from Global Warming alarmists about Population and how it contributes to Carbon output?
They will tell you EVERYTHING in the world must be done to stop Carbon output. Conserve energy, cut your thermostat down in the Winter, up in the Summer, use "green" lightbulbs, do cap and trade, etc., etc. But they NEVER discuss how rising population means you can NEVER reduce total Co2 output unless everyone on the planet returns to the Stone Age. Why is that?
The absolute truth is Global warming alarmists say unless we reduce total Co2 out put, the world is doomed. But even if you reduce consumption in places like the US by 80%, which isn't feasible, Co2 levels RISE with current populations increases and as Indians, Chinese, and others move into the 21st Century and get electricity and cars.
Why is the fact ignored?
Probably because reducing total Co2 output is not the real agenda.
Ok, I also took this class called "Gobal Environmental Challenges" (last semester) and I tackled Global Warming because I think everyone else was afraid of that topic. Anyways, there is irrifutable evidence that this warming trend was indeed induced by human actions and consequences. (anthropogenic?) Google "Mauna Loa curve" and tell me since the 50's the carbon in the air has not increased, and is on an exponential curve upwards. If this doesn't stop in about 50 years the sea level will rise 10 to 20 feet. Aslo since early 1900's , records of weather station recording record lows/highs have showed a gradual increase. Also, if we stop all carbon producing activities, we will still have to deal with a lag effect - and temps will continue to rise. This international panel of scientists, climatologists, etc... have banded together to try to educate the world this is happening.
Who are you going to believe? The ultra rich oil companies that really control the world and can sway governments to thier will because they have that "cash cow milk money oil baby" -- take your mouth off the titty already... I'm selling my car next week and will start to ride a bike, walk, bus, and light rail it. gg If everyone did this they could really say "FUCK YOU" to the oil barrens.
Oh boy, once sea level rises...do you know how many new surf breaks will emerge from different reef breaks? - That Imma have to explore and claim as my own? MWHAHAHAHAHA!
I am curious, how much of your global environmental challenge course was based on the suns activities since 1950, our electro magnetic fields, the earths rotation, and the relation to the earth and other space objects? The problem with the data I have seen thus far, is that it is incomplete. If they are only using part of the equation to dolve the problem the answer cannot be correct.
This is not a matter of oil companies against the environment, it is a matter of determing what can or should be done to ensure that humans can sustain life on this planet. When people came after the chief of NASA when he spoke the honest truth, they didn;t want to hear it.
A big part of my argument I gave in class, from the non human standpoint was covering the topic of "natural variation" of the cosmos... ie: the eliptical orbit the earth has fluxes in and out, sun spots, temperature of the sun, The way the earth wobbles on its axis like a top, how close and far away the earth fluxes to the sun etc... all which in the billions of years of history of the earth might have been responsible for the coming and going of ice ages, contributed with greenhouse gases... meteor strikes, volcacnic activity,.. there is just too much. But it's not just from the 1950's, in fact it started around the industrial revolution... what 1800's into the 1900's.
Just maybe, human activity, and, along with natural variation BOTH play a role. Some of it we can control, others we cannot. And that was the biggest point I was trying to make in my 30 minute presentation I gave to my class at the end of the semester.
Since the industrial revolution, dirty fossil fuels are the main culprit. Coal, gasoline, jet fuel emissions from planes. etc.. you get the picture. So I agree, we as humans need to find a new cleaner, renewable energy source SOON.
Well, I see the pollution angle as something we need to address immediately, but do not consider that as the largest factor contributing to climate change.
As far as the pollutants go it can be simply explained with an aquarium. Anyone who has ever owned a fish tank sees directly what can happen if you overcrowd a tank, do not have enough plants to counter Nitrates. and do not have a proper filtration system. The fish will die from their own pollutants. That is what we are essentially doing to the planet, because we are overcrowding it and polluting it and it's natural filtration system cannot keep pace. Yes, we need to be more earth friendly, plant more oxygen producing plants on a much larger scale than we currently are, which also counters CO2. Find better ways to break down and clean our the chemicals we use asto keep a cleaner earth.
Now where I have a disagreement with the direction chosen by most environmentalists, is they scream global warming at every turn, and then are usually clueless as to what are the major contributing factors, and most of the efforts being taken are futile. I see that as wasted time and money due to the results achieved vs time and capital spent.
As you stated earlier about the earths temperature will still rise even if we shut it down right now, everything . When I see all of the flooding of commercials to stop global warming, the insane prices on " green products" all the nonsense about " green jobs" I realized they are wasting more time and money on things that will not make all that bit of a difference. Though I am a recycler myself, I investigated further, and see that often even more chemicals are being released in recyling of plastics than in the actual creation of them. To me, that seems awfully counter productive.
I am not seeing the focus on counter measure, when this is a case that it is beyond the point of prevention, and that it is pretty obvious we must focus the time and money on strong counter measures rather than spend it all on something that cannot be stopped.
The poles are constantly moving, at what 41km a year now? we cannot change this, the polar bears habitats will eventually melt and reform elsewhere, this has happened many times in the earths history and will continue to happen as long as the electromagnetic fields exist.
Our focus should be on the survival of the human race and any other life we may be able to save through climate change. Climate change itself is unpreventable, unless some mad scientist comes up with a way to control the earths magnetic fields.
Currently we produce too much Ozone on the ground level and are losing too much ozone in our stratosphere, that is partially contributed to the reduction in the earths eletcromagnetic field( which is normal and changes often in the history of the earth).
Now if we could figure out how to transport the bad ozone to the stratosphere where it is needed in combination with trying to produce ozone in space, where it is easier to produce, and transport it to the ozone layer, we would be able to provide much more protection to the earth. These type of counter measure I think would be more productive than the commercials I see every 5 min.
Then we have to deal with the changes in the sun, another factor we cannot prevent, but the most important factor in climate change on earth, if the suns reduced activity is signaling we are headed for another ice age, we should be focusing on surviving through that, which I do believe is possible, if we make major changes now in our approach to climate change. WE must change our focus from "stop global warming" ( which we cannot) to " adapting and being prepared for climate change."
People must accept what our ancestors had, the world is a living, changing, being. If we want it to allow us to live here, we must respect it and care for it and the things that dwell upon it. Our ancestors may have been a bit smarter than we are, they knew then they could not battle nature, it will win. They migrated in order to deal with climate change, today humans try to build houses upon the soil , and expect them to stay there.. but when the earth decides otherwise, no house will stand.
Our challenge is not only to find cleaner energy, renewable energy, but energy that will stand the test of time. It must be able to last through heat and ice, blackouts of the sun, extreme winds and no winds.
You know it really shows our ignorance when we look at the pyramids, for example, why is it no modern structures we build today will be around as long as they will be? We think we are smarter than our ancestors, but the more we learn about the past, the less intelligent our society today becomes.
Sorry, it makes me apeshit batty when I see " stop climate change ads" first I think who was the idiot who paid money for that? Then I think, are there really people here on this planet that think we can stop it? If we want to save the polar bears we have 2 choices, 1. make them artificial habitats, 2. move them as the poles move ( though the poles may not refreeze fast enough to allow them to adapt)
I am not against survivial, I just would like to see them focus their efforts on things we can actually do to make a real difference.
EEK! bloody red wall of text
yeah with this whole "green revolution", people act like they really care, but thier hidden agenda is to make some loot!! Can you believe there is a Lexus luxury hybrid car now? This amazes me.