|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 10, 2024 10:51:33 GMT
Overpopulation is a problem, but short of genocide (which is not an option) we're stuck with it. There is a concept I once saw referred to as "natural genocide". That if we do not take action to address overpopulation then nature will do it for us. Emerging pandemics. Food, Water, Energy Shortages leading to Resource Wars. Overpopulation is the single biggest driving factor of Global Climate Change. Everything else is a bit-part actor. Not only should some form of depopulation be an option it is the ONLY VIABLE option. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 10, 2024 18:16:49 GMT
I think we all do. What matters is why you think they are important, what causes them and in reality can we do anything about them. That is leaving aside the obvious question did we measure them properly. For most people 1976 was hotter and longer even if it was not. I remember the winters and summer of the 70's were very different to the winters and summer of now; everyone I know, from wherever in the world they are, says the same. So it would IMO be utter lunacy (on a scale of denying heliocentrism or claiming the earth is flat) to deny that the climate is changing. So we have to ask ourselves what is driving that change. In truth man's impacts are only one of a series of "causal factors" for Global Climate Change. However, as the human population of the planet increases they are an increasing factor. Not just because of the CO2, but also because of all the other things that come with an increasing human population. More urban sites, that are prone to create hotspots. More destruction of natural habitats to provide land for those urban sites. More water usage. More sewerage. Decreasing biodiversity. that limits local, regional and global environments' abilities to adapt to climate change. The root cause of man's increasing evident climate impact is all down to one thing: overpopulation. The reason global governments are super wary of a) committing to meaningful change, b) enacting meaningful change, and c) telling us about those meaningful changes is because all of those are utterly pointless unless we address the real herd of elephants in the room Overpopulation. There's reason no one is seriously discussing Overpopulation: because the people who own and pay for Governments the world over want, and need MORE consumers, MORE cheap labour and so MORE population - because that drives MORE profit. Until we are ready to have a truly holistic discussion about Population and Climate Change all were are doing is pissing into the increasingly strong wind. But we MUST have that holistic conversation; because if we do not find a solution then nature will find that solution for us. Thinking about any of these issues in isolation not only ensures no solution will be found, but also that we leave a very, very bleak future for our children and grand children. Does anyone here really think Covid 19 would have been such an global issue had we had a global population of half of what we did have, if international movement of goods and people were half of what they are? We are sleep-walking into another Pandemic (and it is a WHEN not an if) and Global Resource Wars (fresh water being the likely key resource) simply because no major global government is prepared to tell Big Business they have to accept lower profits, lower numbers of consumers and more expensive labour. All The Best You think you remember the weather of the past but one is always viewing weather with different perceptions. The weather record is important here and even then that is flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 10, 2024 18:53:45 GMT
Overpopulation is a problem, but short of genocide (which is not an option) we're stuck with it. There is a concept I once saw referred to as "natural genocide". That if we do not take action to address overpopulation then nature will do it for us. Emerging pandemics. Food, Water, Energy Shortages leading to Resource Wars. Overpopulation is the single biggest driving factor of Global Climate Change. Everything else is a bit-part actor. Not only should some form of depopulation be an option it is the ONLY VIABLE option. All The Best A pandemic may not be natural genocide. Global climate change is driven by many factors and no one knows exactly what they are, there are many influences. Overpopulation is going to be a problem and that will result in goodness knows what type of catastrophes with what type of outcome. It is true that depopulation is the only viable option, many will be looking for volunteers and in the end it may be just a selection process by powers as yet unknown. The current culture wars may be opening gambits and critical race theory just a primer. Like the Roman...etc. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 10, 2024 19:48:06 GMT
I remember the winters and summer of the 70's were very different to the winters and summer of now; everyone I know, from wherever in the world they are, says the same. So it would IMO be utter lunacy (on a scale of denying heliocentrism or claiming the earth is flat) to deny that the climate is changing. So we have to ask ourselves what is driving that change. In truth man's impacts are only one of a series of "causal factors" for Global Climate Change. However, as the human population of the planet increases they are an increasing factor. Not just because of the CO2, but also because of all the other things that come with an increasing human population. More urban sites, that are prone to create hotspots. More destruction of natural habitats to provide land for those urban sites. More water usage. More sewerage. Decreasing biodiversity. that limits local, regional and global environments' abilities to adapt to climate change. The root cause of man's increasing evident climate impact is all down to one thing: overpopulation. The reason global governments are super wary of a) committing to meaningful change, b) enacting meaningful change, and c) telling us about those meaningful changes is because all of those are utterly pointless unless we address the real herd of elephants in the room Overpopulation. There's reason no one is seriously discussing Overpopulation: because the people who own and pay for Governments the world over want, and need MORE consumers, MORE cheap labour and so MORE population - because that drives MORE profit. Until we are ready to have a truly holistic discussion about Population and Climate Change all were are doing is pissing into the increasingly strong wind. But we MUST have that holistic conversation; because if we do not find a solution then nature will find that solution for us. Thinking about any of these issues in isolation not only ensures no solution will be found, but also that we leave a very, very bleak future for our children and grand children. Does anyone here really think Covid 19 would have been such an global issue had we had a global population of half of what we did have, if international movement of goods and people were half of what they are? We are sleep-walking into another Pandemic (and it is a WHEN not an if) and Global Resource Wars (fresh water being the likely key resource) simply because no major global government is prepared to tell Big Business they have to accept lower profits, lower numbers of consumers and more expensive labour. All The Best You think you remember the weather of the past but one is always viewing weather with different perceptions. The weather record is important here and even then that is flawed. Well, of course, anything that does not justify your specific opinion just must be flawed right? And anything that justifies it, no matter how far it diverges from the scientific mainstream consensus, is never flawed, right? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Apr 11, 2024 6:32:45 GMT
Vinny said: "And the best thing to do with captured CO2 is to make fuel for motorcars"
As I said, the amount of energy you need to put in to create synthetic fuel from CO2 is over 3 times greater than the energy that can be returned by burning it in an ICE engine. Petrol/diesel engines only make sense if you start from oil (where the Sun has done the energy intensive bit).
If you have electricity then it makes far more sense to use it to drive an electric car - preferably by fuel cell. Using it make synthetic fuel is nonsensical.
Fusion is the Holy Grail but there's no guarantee that it can ever be achieved. So we need a viable alternative. Modern advances have made generation of solar energy on the Moon a definite possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 11, 2024 13:22:44 GMT
You think you remember the weather of the past but one is always viewing weather with different perceptions. The weather record is important here and even then that is flawed. Well, of course, anything that does not justify your specific opinion just must be flawed right? And anything that justifies it, no matter how far it diverges from the scientific mainstream consensus, is never flawed, right? All The Best No not really. In terms of temperature we have a demonstrably poor record in places as recorded by the official world meteorological organisation who have classified all our weather stations with varying degrees of accuracy recorded. These are all the official groups we place our climate research data on. The link of course is in the OP and is effectively the basis of this thread. Climate is averages and all of us have only a perception of what is in effect local weather and if we move around that will vary. The weather where I live is different from the weather 1 mile up the road where they can have frosts and we can be frost free, the village 4 miles down the road gets more rain and wind as we tend to be sheltered from the south westerlies but get battered by southerlies swirling over the hill behind. I travelled from Edinburgh once on a bright sunny day to my home in central Scotland which had had freezing fog all day. I lived on the Hampshire coast for twenty years and used to commute to Winchester, Southampton and London at various times and once over Portsdown hill the weather was totally different. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 12, 2024 7:13:17 GMT
'Hundreds of ‘ghost’ climate stations are no longer operational; instead they are assigned temperatures from surrounding stations.'
Considering the negative effects of policies enacted to deal with climate change I would have hoped that the evidence upon which it is based was a tad more robust..
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 12, 2024 18:48:16 GMT
So in summation, we have stations not recording any values but have values assigned to them as an estimate. We have record temperatures recorded from stations that are at best accurate to only 1C and in the past have been effectively less accurate for the record temperature . We have record temps recorded beside a runway on which fuel guzzling, heat emitting jet fighter aircraft have been landing around the same time and the stats that are used to indicate global warming are not even comparing like with like and are jiggled by each agency.
This is the 'settled science' we are expected to tip our hats to and believe as 'settled'. If I had adopted this type of procedure in my professional career I would have been sacked and I would be surprised if there is any profession that would accept such methods.
If one does not have tests results then one does not have them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 12, 2024 19:47:34 GMT
So in summation, we have stations not recording any values but have values assigned to them as an estimate. We have record temperatures recorded from stations that are at best accurate to only 1C and in the past have been effectively less accurate for the record temperature . We have record temps recorded beside a runway on which fuel guzzling, heat emitting jet fighter aircraft have been landing around the same time and the stats that are used to indicate global warming are not even comparing like with like and are jiggled by each agency. This is the 'settled science' we are expected to tip our hats to and believe as 'settled'. If I had adopted this type of procedure in my professional career I would have been sacked and I would be surprised if there is any profession that would accept such methods. If one does not have tests results then one does not have them. Not sure what your professional career is. Perhaps it did not teach that "SOME of the evidence being questionable is NOT the same as ALL the evidence being questionable", and that when the stakes are "critical" it is usually best to "err on the side of caution". If we act as though MMGW is real and it isn't all we ultimately have done is make the world safer , healthier, and more sustainable for future generations. If we act as though MMGW is not real and it is we have condemned future generations to poverty and resource wars. Which of those legacies would you rather leave to your children and grand-children? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Apr 13, 2024 6:28:51 GMT
But what if the measures we are taking to stop MMGW (such as net zero) have no effect on GW but simply empoverish the developed world so that it can't take steps to mitigate the effects of GW? Has it ever occurred to you, PV, that the abolition of fossil fuel is an easy way to eliminate capitalism - which is the stated aim of many of these bodies.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 13, 2024 7:24:39 GMT
So in summation, we have stations not recording any values but have values assigned to them as an estimate. We have record temperatures recorded from stations that are at best accurate to only 1C and in the past have been effectively less accurate for the record temperature . We have record temps recorded beside a runway on which fuel guzzling, heat emitting jet fighter aircraft have been landing around the same time and the stats that are used to indicate global warming are not even comparing like with like and are jiggled by each agency. This is the 'settled science' we are expected to tip our hats to and believe as 'settled'. If I had adopted this type of procedure in my professional career I would have been sacked and I would be surprised if there is any profession that would accept such methods. If one does not have tests results then one does not have them. Not sure what your professional career is. Perhaps it did not teach that "SOME of the evidence being questionable is NOT the same as ALL the evidence being questionable", and that when the stakes are "critical" it is usually best to "err on the side of caution". If we act as though MMGW is real and it isn't all we ultimately have done is make the world safer , healthier, and more sustainable for future generations. If we act as though MMGW is not real and it is we have condemned future generations to poverty and resource wars. Which of those legacies would you rather leave to your children and grand-children? All The Best Which evidence is not questionable? We can see temperatures are questionable, we know that the evidence that CO2 is the culprit is a hypothesis not proven by observations, we know CO2 has galloped away these past 40 years and temperature has not followed, we know the models at best way overegg the pudding, we are told all storms and droughts and hurricanes and typhoons and rainfall are becoming worse but the evidence that that is so is pretty thin on the ground if it exists at all, we know that sea level rise is happening but at a very gentle pace not in line with the dire warnings, we have been warned the Arctic and the Antarctic are melting at a rapid rate of knots yet the ice and sea ice keep accumulating in unexpected places. The evidence that it is not an emergency is the stronger evidence of the two propositions. You now ask the time honoured question as regards legacies. Along similar lines as religions. Be a pious person or you will pay for it later, or your issue will. If we accept the warnings then it will be the hoi polloi that will suffer, with a greater number of deaths in winter, more infant mortality, more hunger and malnutrition and a lower birthrate as no measures will be successful until population declines unless the cuts and restrictions are severe. If we accept the emergency those measures will become ever more stringent. We condemn people to poverty now or poverty later. Not much of a choice. There are other choices. None are good, but all are solutions. I suspect minds greater than mine have already given it much thought an that is why t narrative is pushed so hard against reality. Just a thought if the emergency is as stated why on earth are we increasing our population at such a rapid rate. Every extra person increases our emissions. If net zero is a worthy goal then population increase works against that goal directly either in our own emissions or our exported emissions by way of imports. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 13, 2024 7:58:02 GMT
But what if the measures we are taking to stop MMGW (such as net zero) have no effect on GW but simply empoverish the developed world so that it can't take steps to mitigate the effects of GW? Has it ever occurred to you, PV, that the abolition of fossil fuel is an easy way to eliminate capitalism - which is the stated aim of many of these bodies. Great. Unfettered capitalist greed is driving almost ALL of the world's major issues right now - especially climate change. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Apr 13, 2024 9:37:08 GMT
The country has been stuck in the same weather pattern since last October which is scary, with huge amounts of wind and rain in the east, god knows how the north and especially the north west has coped. The east is more liable to droughts.
To look forward, if the weather gets stuck again, and probably will, imagine summer with six months of unbroken sunshine scorching everything. Or of no rain. Spain is in drought now.
There are no warnings from the government, they cannot afford to be honest, as usual, but will cope in a piecemeal way. I have a store of canned foods, that will only go so far in the event of food chain collapse, but how to store water? Should we bother with either? anbd just accept armageddon?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 13, 2024 12:11:31 GMT
But what if the measures we are taking to stop MMGW (such as net zero) have no effect on GW but simply empoverish the developed world so that it can't take steps to mitigate the effects of GW? Has it ever occurred to you, PV, that the abolition of fossil fuel is an easy way to eliminate capitalism - which is the stated aim of many of these bodies. Great. Unfettered capitalist greed is driving almost ALL of the world's major issues right now - especially climate change. All The Best It is also driving net zero as it is the man in the street paying for it all. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 13, 2024 12:14:18 GMT
The country has been stuck in the same weather pattern since last October which is scary, with huge amounts of wind and rain in the east, god knows how the north and especially the north west has coped. The east is more liable to droughts. To look forward, if the weather gets stuck again, and probably will, imagine summer with six months of unbroken sunshine scorching everything. Or of no rain. Spain is in drought now. There are no warnings from the government, they cannot afford to be honest, as usual, but will cope in a piecemeal way. I have a store of canned foods, that will only go so far in the event of food chain collapse, but how to store water? Should we bother with either? anbd just accept armageddon? Bad winters have happened before, droughts have happened before and no doubt will again. The criminal act is not not tackling climate change the problem is not preparing for the extremes we do get. |
|
