Cold Water On "global Warming"

[manshimajin]

Albert, some specifics: how do you propose to reduce the population over the timescales needed to significantly address global warming, ie the next 10 years?

 

Slim, the question is how do you propose to address global warming effectively over the next ten years as population growth and growing consumerism in previously poor high population countries continues to put mounting pressure on the environment?

 

Indeed talking about the next 10 years is probably already far too late - it was the last 100 years that mattered. Sure we can reduce CO2 emissions in the 'developed' world a bit by using nuclear energy more but that is not going to fix the problem...why should the Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Russians, Central Europeans, Africans, South and Central Americans want to have less by way of 'things' than we do? As they improve their lifestyles there is going to be enormous upward pressure - the signs are loud and clear for example in mineral extraction and export levels.

 

Wars are fought over control of food, water and minerals....

[Chinahand]

I can't help thinking that people are talking at cross purposes at the moment.

 

Firstly there is a need for demographic transition in the 3rd world; to be blunt the sooner the better. But people will only reduce their birth rate voluntarily when they have confidence that children will survive into adulthood and when they rationalize that they have sufficient support in old age.

 

Both those things require development which is still an uphill struggle in vast proportions of the world.

 

Stabilizing populations are far out in the future and even with the most coercive of policies won't do anything significant to stop global warming. That said giving families and especially women access to birth control is absolutely vital and that means empowering women, something vast areas of the world under Catholic or Islamic domination are very resistant to.

 

At the moment it is difficult, but not impossible to see where the technological and behavioural changes to stop CO2 levels raising to unsustainably high levels will come from.

 

Technological change, renewables, sustainable technologies, diversification, energy conservation etc etc. But as has been pointed out time and time again these things are good policies to pursue no matter what.

 

The current crisis in the energy market is just a foretaste of what things could be like as the real costs of energy policy start to be reflected in the energy price. That is a real risk as has been mentioned over resource wars, but that is why having a managed, consensus built set of proposals developed at the UN level is so important.

 

And high prices drive technology change. Yeah there are risks, but also huge opportunities. Craig Venter genetically engineering bacteria to sequseter carbon, Klaus Lackner and his artificial trees - these are intersting times and it is an extremely pessimistic view point to see the decimation of the human race as the only solution. Oh its Tatlock full of gloom and doom - now there's a surprise!

[mollag]

Part of the problem is as we have stated, that scepticism, healthy or otherwise, is being demonised and minimised to the stage where people could be afraid to state their opinon for to be accused of being "deniers"

 

where does the sceptisism come from? as has been said before, by the vast amount of doom scenarios pushed by the press and the scientific community, later found to be not as bad as was forecast, Wolfies.

This article is worth a read http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/08/aids.health

 

Trust needs to be built back into the system cos .for in my case, soon as i hear "in a report published today" i turn off, move on. Im sick of the bolloxs.

[Chinahand]

Part of the problem is as we have stated, that scepticism, healthy or otherwise, is being demonised and minimised to the stage where people could be afraid to state their opinon for to be accused of being "deniers"

 

where does the sceptisism come from? as has been said before, by the vast amount of doom scenarios pushed by the press and the scientific community, later found to be not as bad as was forecast, Wolfies.

This article is worth a read http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/08/aids.health

 

Trust needs to be built back into the system cos .for in my case, soon as i hear "in a report published today" i turn off, move on. Im sick of the bolloxs.

Mollaq - who exactly is calling Dr Chin a denier? Or anyone in the article you've quoted. Its rather out of date - the BBC reported similar findings back in Nov last year - based on the UN's own figures.

 

This is nuances in epidemiology - a 16% reduction as a result of better surveying - mainly in India - I agree 16% is a lot, but when you are trying to survey the entire world there is alot of uncertainty.

 

Is AIDS being over sold? I don't know, but with between 1.9 and 2.4 million people dying of it last year - and with a drug which can and has reduced mortality available, but not used partly due to the efforts of deniers - well I am all in favour of major prevention efforts - both in AIDS and with those who deny science - though I say again I do not think Dr Chin is that - he publishes and accepts peer review etc.