The effects of climate change

[cgymike]

Data are always debatable!

 

[Alnitak]

No, but they are fudgeable.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Fluctuations in the climate has been happening for millions/billions of years...

This statement and "mankind's activities of burning concentrated carbons that were pulled out of the atmosphere over enormous amounts of time and releasing it in combustion can affect the global temperature and the ecosystem" are not mutually exclusive statements.

Yes, we have had ice ages and warming periods. But the last time we had this much carbon in the atmosphere, dragonflies were about 6 feet long and enormous amounts of global volcanic activity were causing it.

What's the excuse today? Earth's just in a hot mood?

 

[Benvolio]

We should be able to agree at least on attempting to slow population growth world wide, but also in each country. All pollution and environmental damage are a result of population.

 

[Kulindahr]

This statement and "mankind's activities of burning concentrated carbons that were pulled out of the atmosphere over enormous amounts of time and releasing it in combustion can affect the global temperature and the ecosystem" are not mutually exclusive statements.

Yes, we have had ice ages and warming periods. But the last time we had this much carbon in the atmosphere, dragonflies were about 6 feet long and enormous amounts of global volcanic activity were causing it.

What's the excuse today? Earth's just in a hot mood?

The effect of the deforestation of Europe in the Age of Exploration is measurable, too. We're not just adding carbon, we've been reducing the ecosystem's ability to absorb it again.

 

[xbuzzerx]

We should be able to agree at least on attempting to slow population growth world wide, but also in each country. All pollution and environmental damage are a result of population.

Your capacity to make every issue on earth into an argument against immigration is amazing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your capacity to make every issue on earth into an argument against immigration is amazing.

He's got a point this time: less population would mean less pollution.

 

[xbuzzerx]

He's got a point this time: less population would mean less pollution.

If we strictly adhered only to replacement birthrate worldwide tomorrow the problem would not substantially calm.

 

[borg69unimatrix]

He's got a point this time: less population would mean less pollution.

Not if they only killed off the greenies.

 

[zoltanspawn]

If we strictly adhered only to replacement birthrate worldwide tomorrow the problem would not substantially calm.

What would make the problem substantially calm?

(I'm in favor of diminishing population. The horror.)

 

[xbuzzerx]

What would make the problem substantially calm?

(I'm in favor of diminishing population. The horror.)

Serious moves towards renewable non-carbon energy and non-fossil fuel automotives as countries like Brazil has done.

Expecting the human race to abruptly adopt a new paradigm about limiting childbirth worldwide is not only unrealistic, but conveniently enough is a solution involving changes and sacrifices that largely don't affect any gay males.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Serious moves towards renewable non-carbon energy and non-fossil fuel automotives as countries like Brazil has done.

Expecting the human race to abruptly adopt a new paradigm about limiting childbirth worldwide is not only unrealistic, but conveniently enough is a solution involving changes and sacrifices that largely don't affect any gay males.

Brazil, you mean the country that's cutting down the rainforest?

Would an "abrupt" worldwide change akin to Brazil's "serious moves" really "substantially" alter climate change?

And is a new paradigm about population growth really unrealistic? Or is it something happening already in countries like Japan and Germany? Is unlimited population growth more realistic than controlled population growth?

 

[Benvolio]

If we strictly adhered only to replacement birthrate worldwide tomorrow the problem would not substantially calm.

If we do not slow population growth, nothing else can work. We cannot reduce emissions fast enought to ofset the growth. Remember, climate change,even if human caused, is only one of many environmental problems--it is just the one which best supports the left's Marxist agenda.

 

[gsdx]

From http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ation-global-united-nations-2100-boom-africa/

Global population predictions:

 

[Kulindahr]

If we strictly adhered only to replacement birthrate worldwide tomorrow the problem would not substantially calm.

No, but it would be a necessary step in the right direction.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Brazil, you mean the country that's cutting down the rainforest?

Would an "abrupt" worldwide change akin to Brazil's "serious moves" really "substantially" alter climate change?

And is a new paradigm about population growth really unrealistic? Or is it something happening already in countries like Japan and Germany? Is unlimited population growth more realistic than controlled population growth?

The U.S. puts vastly more carbon into the atmosphere while not conducting systematic deforestation.

It's not about pure numbers of people. It's about how much energy those people are using and how that energy is being generated.

 

[Kulindahr]

From http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ation-global-united-nations-2100-boom-africa/

Global population predictions:

Whoa -- just last year I saw a report saying we'd level off and start declining before hitting double-digit billions!

A plague killing a couple billion would be really helpful about now, especially if it left a couple of billion more sterile.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If we do not slow population growth, nothing else can work. We cannot reduce emissions fast enought to ofset the growth. Remember, climate change,even if human caused, is only one of many environmental problems--it is just the one which best supports the left's Marxist agenda.

Last time I checked 10 million solar panels do not create more global heat than 10 solar panels.

 

[Kulindahr]

Last time I checked 10 million solar panels do not create more global heat than 10 solar panels.

The issue there is that producing 10 million solar panels results in a lot more pollution of one sort or another than 10 solar panels.

 

[zoltanspawn]

It's not about pure numbers of people. It's about how much energy those people are using and how that energy is being generated.

We might look at this by asking if it's more likely that people would a) change their habits of consumption or b) change their habits of reproduction.

Moreover, we might ask which possibility is more virtuous.