It's Not Global Warming...

[VinnieK]

You middle-class-pseudo-FOE types make me larff. 'Tax the poor' - just so you can feel a little less guilty taking the kids to school in a 4x4.

 

A man recommending culling the human race isn't on very sturdy ground when mounting ad hominem attacks on others for their opinions.

 

What we really need is a culling and population control - otherwise - like a virus - humans will overrun and destroy the planet.

 

The myth of an imminent demographic catastrophy due to overpopulation has been debunked time and time again, and yet still it lingers as powerful as ever in your slightly creepy apocalyptic fantasies. This, combined with your nationalist sentiments is only a few short steps from declaring "lebensraum" as an incentive to invading the Shetland Isles.

 

I suppose at least the kids would get a lot of exercise and fresh air playing in fields as part of the Albert Youth.

 

Face it - the best thing you could do to reduce 'global warming' and your own 'emissions' is to top yourself. Anything other than population control is just delaying the inevitable. If we reduce our emissions by half and the population quadrouples in 100 years - what's the point?

 

An exceptionally pointless hypothesis and particularly dishonest piece of rhetoric, since it's not going to happen: The population growth rate has halved since its high point in the '60s (to about 1.2%) and is continuing to decrease. Current UN models suggest that the population in 2050 will be 9.4 billion (others predict slower growth and the 9 billion mark only being hit in 2070), which is an increase of about a half and that the population will eventually crest and decline somewhere in the 21st century. You can hardly criticise others for indulging in "tree hugger" maths (without actually giving details of the no doubt impressive model you've based your conclusions on) and then resort to a Stats for Excel and Demographics for Dummies analysis to base your own view on.

 

In fact, even if the population does grow to the levels you predict, the "what's the point" hypothesis you endorse relies on the idea that the technology required to curb emissions and otherwise negate mankind's influence on the environment will reach a certain point and then remain static whilst the population grows and undoes any good these technologies achieve. This, of course, is unrealistic - this technology, like most, will improve, be refined, become more powerful, and cheaper to implement over time.

[Chinahand]

You'd think the concept of spending money to make money would transpose to the CO2 debate, but clearly not.

 

That said for all the concious raising this issue to me is mainly about making people who are in fact doing very little to change anything feel good about buying a low energy light bulb.

 

It helps - a little - but far more radical proposals are needed and these depend upon political agreement internationally. Most of the important players aren't particularly democratic and not that interested in feel good teenagers, or celebrities.

 

Sorry to be cynical!

[Slim]

Sorry to be cynical!

 

It's undoubtedly flawed, but then so was live aid, and that turned into something very important. Bit early to tell if this'll make a difference, but it's got to be better than nowt.

 

God theres some cringeworthy moments though!

[Albert Tatlock]

A man recommending culling the human race isn't on very sturdy ground when mounting ad hominem attacks on others for their opinions.

I didn't say mass culling. I just have a list of about five six people in mind - plus a load of free chav vasectomies and steralisations and restricting everyone else to the right to self replacement.

 

Problem solved.

 

Ding! Next problem please.

[VinnieK]

What will the criteria be for these sterilizations to be enforced, and what qualifies an individual to the right to procreate in your brave utopia, Herr Schumann?

[Slim]

And who will pay for the care of the elderly Mr Hitler when our economics depend on a large working population.

[LittleEva]

Well, of course you are right, Virginia....isn't it always us dumb Americans that cause all of the worlds' problems?

[Jake]

It isn't global warming that is causing the floods nor is it God's wrath....it is an accident of nature, pure and simple.

 

No it's not. It's the fault of Americans being too dumb to take action and join in with most of the rest of the world in recognising that climate change is man-made.

 

And the rest of you, stop Bashing the Bishop.

 

I find you quite narrow minded in your view and totally lacking any real sense. If all Americans are dumb then it makes us twice as dumb as we invented the Industrial age as a nation.... we also ruled half the world and look at the state its in.

 

I don't subscribe to this theory of global warming being due simply to carbon emissions. Carbon is naturally absorbed into the earth in deposits we mine like oil and coal.... the water base also absorbs carbon and so does rock, I believe that the earth has its own cycle and whereas we once had an ice age we may see one again and a stone age and a bronze age.... the weather we are experiencing is a common cycle as the earth evolves.... we are too insignificant to harm this planet unless we detonate all the nuclear bombs in one go.

 

Oh! and by the way Virginia.... look to China and India if you want to blame someone.... the Chinese are building a coal fired power station every day and India is also an emerging economy that is dirtying the atmosphere.... if every American and every Brit were to go green tomorrow it would not make an ounce of difference whilst China and India continue on their path.

 

Just thought you needed some education Virginia.

[Slim]

I don't subscribe to this theory of global warming being due simply to carbon emissions. Carbon is naturally absorbed into the earth in deposits we mine like oil and coal.... the water base also absorbs carbon and so does rock, I believe that the earth has its own cycle and whereas we once had an ice age we may see one again and a stone age and a bronze age.... the weather we are experiencing is a common cycle as the earth evolves.... we are too insignificant to harm this planet unless we detonate all the nuclear bombs in one go.

 

I find you quite narrow minded in your view and totally lacking any real sense.

 

Oil and coal are formed from compression and heat over millions of years, yet it take seconds to burn and release that carbon back into the atmosphere. We don't have the millions of years it takes to re-capture that released carbon back into oil and coal.

 

Water and soil does absorb carbon directly out of the atmosphere, but models show that as the planet warms, the effectiveness of those carbon sinks reduce. Again, the rate at which carbon is absorbed into water and soil isn't anywhere near the rate at which we're releasing carbons into the atmosphere.

 

We are on a natural warming cycle, but human activity adding to that cycle, which is what makes it so potentially dangerous.

 

whereas we once had an ice age we may see one again and a stone age and a bronze age

 

You must be trolling here, right? The stone and bronze age's were times defined by technology, not climate. Can you explain why you're comparing the ice age with the stone age?

 

We're not too insignificant to harm the planet. This has been proven with 90% certainty, and unless you're a climatologist, I'll take their word over yours.

 

Oh! and by the way Virginia.... look to China and India if you want to blame someone.... the Chinese are building a coal fired power station every day and India is also an emerging economy that is dirtying the atmosphere.... if every American and every Brit were to go green tomorrow it would not make an ounce of difference whilst China and India continue on their path.

Just thought you needed some education Virginia.

 

The USA is the greatest producer of greenhouse emissions in the world. It's true that China is developing fast and may overtake the USA, but currently it's the americans that are the big problem.

 

Does that mean we should do nothing? No, it makes it even more important for us to reduce our emissions to counter the threat.

[VinnieK]

I find you quite narrow minded in your view and totally lacking any real sense. If all Americans are dumb then it makes us twice as dumb as we invented the Industrial age as a nation.... we also ruled half the world and look at the state its in.

 

The British Empire ruled a quarter of the world, not a half, and didn't rule South America or a fair few other areas of the globe that are in a terrible state, so it's difficult to lay the blame entirely at the doorstep of the Empire. Russia, for instance, managed to fuck up all by itself. But that's by the by.

 

I believe that the earth has its own cycle and whereas we once had an ice age we may see one again and a stone age and a bronze age.... the weather we are experiencing is a common cycle as the earth evolves.... we are too insignificant to harm this planet unless we detonate all the nuclear bombs in one go.

 

Even though it repeatedly comes up in this debate I am nevertheless always slightly surprised when someone says "I believe (some broad statement about the ecology of the planet)". What's this belief based on, as it isn't the majority of findings or representative of the environmental science community (i.e. the people who are most qualified to know). Sure, it's possible to completely dismiss the science, and many have, but that doesn't alter the fact that this belief or that belief has simply been conjoured out of thin air, or (at very best) based on a GCSE level account of the Carbon cycle.

 

The argument that relies on humanity apparently being too insignificant to do much damage also rankles, too often looking like ignorance dressed up as a faux profound insight into the place of humanity in the universe. Where's the qualitative or quantitative analysis to back up these statements? After all, we are capable of eradicating species without even trying, or of polluting rivers, seas and land so that they are useless for years or even decades. In fact, what undermines this argument is your statement "unless we detonate all the nuclear bombs in one go". Yes humanity is, in a pseudo new agey, scritctly speaking cosmic sense "insignificant", but on the local level of our planet our technology is far from insignificant - nuclear technology is simply the most dramatic example of this, the alteration of the environment as a by product of our vast and no less powerful industrial base is another.

 

Oh! and by the way Virginia.... look to China and India if you want to blame someone.... the Chinese are building a coal fired power station every day and India is also an emerging economy that is dirtying the atmosphere....

 

The Chinese are building two coal fired power stations every week, not one every day.

 

if every American and every Brit were to go green tomorrow it would not make an ounce of difference whilst China and India continue on their path.

 

As Slim has stated, the U.S. is the origin of the largest quantity of carbon emissions in the world, so it would make a difference. You have, however, missed or ignored the most crucial aspect of the methods of dealing with climate change. Although "going green" is important in the short term, the true goal is to develop technologies that allow humanity to continue living in the lifestyle it has become accustomed to without placing such great stresses on the environment - this is all too often ignored by people, and sometimes perhaps deliberately and for no other reason than because it suits their purposes to portray environmentalism as a mixture of government imposed chore and punitive tax. Such technologies would allow global industry, a crucial component of our civilizations, to continue without causing adverse environmental effects on a global or local scale (indeed, the latter is argument enough for these technologies given that it's hard to dispute that air, water and soil pollution can all be serious problems on a local level that result from human activity), and should in any case be persued in the name of diversifying our energy resources and industrial methods for economic and geopolitical reasons (in addition to the argument regarding the environment).

[Jake]

Thanks for your input slim.... my original remark to Virginia was meant to imply that assuming all Americans are dumb is like saying all Asians are terrorists

 

Talking of the stone and bronze ages was a metaphor meaning if we did meet with another ice age we would have no choice but to go back to basics.

 

I am still not convinced about global warming being a human creation as there is no proven scientific fact today to prove so conclusively. There are assumed facts but no credible evidence. There is evidence that for millions of years the earth has moved around cycles and we continue to do so. Weather has been known to change in different parts over the world through time and this is born out of what we are still learning from the likes of geologists and such.... We still don't know nearly as much about the Oceans and Seas yet.... we are still developing technology that allows us to learn even more every day.

 

We have it within our hands now to create clean power.... France has set up the first nuclear fission plant that generates electricity with near zero emissions and only half the waste of a "fusion" plant.... it is within our realm to create power by splitting the hydrogen atom, if the oil companies did not keep buying up the licenses and copyrights to new and up coming inventions we may actually see us drift away from using oil but we are yet to reach "peak oil" when all the major oil suppliers will make a killing out of their product.

 

All this hype is based around money and certain people are making a lot of it.... I find it tiresome these days when people approach me for a green design to a product that is most environmentally unfriendly.... call me a skeptic but this whole issue is simply making some very rich indeed.

 

Vinnie.... the Chinese are building a power station every day.... That's what we know, we simply choose to ignore the suffering going on there as in deaths as they become the biggest polluter on earth. Maybe we should share our technology with the rest of the world instead of simply making them do what they have to in order to survive.

[slinkydevil]

assuming all Americans are dumb is like saying all Asians are terrorists

 

We wouldn't want that sort of pigeonholing now would we.

 

 

Muslims have a code to live in the west because they like it and the benefits it brings and they turn a blind eye to the suffering that hurts the innocent infidel.... they also have a hidden agenda that their procreation will outstrip the UK one day and so make Britain a Muslim state.

 

These are fanatical people and you can call me a racist all you want.... but no one else is bombing the British other than the Muslims, be them home grown or imported as we love to prove we don't hate them.

[Slim]

Talking of the stone and bronze ages was a metaphor meaning if we did meet with another ice age we would have no choice but to go back to basics.

 

But you said that the stone age was part of some cycle?

 

I am still not convinced about global warming being a human creation as there is no proven scientific fact today to prove so conclusively.

 

Actually, there is. In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. If you read up on the IPCC

and the challenges it faces, you can see how important such a conclusion is. If you Doctor said you needed treatment or there'd be a 90% chance you'd die, you'd take the treatment. What else do you need to prove human infuence?

 

 

There are assumed facts but no credible evidence.

 

That's incorrect. There's plenty of good peer reviewed evidence that points to man made influence on global warming.

 

 

We have it within our hands now to create clean power.... France has set up the first nuclear fission plant that generates electricity with near zero emissions and only half the waste of a "fusion" plant....

 

Now you're really showing your cluelessness. What is a fusion plant? Can you point me to some examples of fusion plants in use today? Nuclear fission plants are definately part of a solution, but the fuels for them are not infinate either and the handling of waste continues to be a propblem. Power generation isn't the only purpose for oil either, so nuclear power doesnt solve all those problems.

 

it is within our realm to create power by splitting the hydrogen atom, if the oil companies did not keep buying up the licenses and copyrights to new and up coming inventions we may actually see us drift away from using oil but we are yet to reach "peak oil" when all the major oil suppliers will make a killing out of their product.

 

That's simply tin hat wearing conspiracy nonsense. Got any proof?

 

All this hype is based around money and certain people are making a lot of it.... I find it tiresome these days when people approach me for a green design to a product that is most environmentally unfriendly.... call me a skeptic but this whole issue is simply making some very rich indeed.

 

Again, got any examples or proof?

 

Vinnie.... the Chinese are building a power station every day.... That's what we know, we simply choose to ignore the suffering going on there as in deaths as they become the biggest polluter on earth. Maybe we should share our technology with the rest of the world instead of simply making them do what they have to in order to survive.

 

Got any examples or proof?

[Jake]

assuming all Americans are dumb is like saying all Asians are terrorists

 

We wouldn't want that sort of pigeonholing now would we.

 

 

Muslims have a code to live in the west because they like it and the benefits it brings and they turn a blind eye to the suffering that hurts the innocent infidel.... they also have a hidden agenda that their procreation will outstrip the UK one day and so make Britain a Muslim state.

 

These are fanatical people and you can call me a racist all you want.... but no one else is bombing the British other than the Muslims, be them home grown or imported as we love to prove we don't hate them.

 

Haha.... our own new chief of internal security if actually making people wake up to the fact that its not viewed as racist anymore to report your neighbor for possible intent.... in fact it is welcomed as the threat is real. Not all Asians are Muslim you may care to know.

 

We have sat on our laurels for long enough.... and the state now actively encourage us to do otherwise. That was a different thread and nothing to do with global warming my friend.... the depths some will sink to in order to put another down. tssssk!

[slinkydevil]

Not all Asians are Muslim you may care to know.

 

And not all muslims are fanatical or are in the UK 'because they like it and the benefits it brings'.

 

I was just pointing out your pigeonholing whilst you bleat about pigeonholing. Carry on.