Global Warming

No wuks, mate.

…you are not right that
only a microscopic percentage of that 7 billion is actually dispersing pollutants into the air”.

Now, every “peasant” is part of the consumer society - massive housing blocks, lighting and heating, cars, flat-screen TVs, mobile phones, processed foods, - before we even start on the massive military use of non-renewable and polluting resources.

Yes, that’s true.

One tiny example - research the amount of plastics going into our oceans every single day. These come from all those people - billions of shopping bags etc etc - every single day.

Saw something on Current Affair? the other day about that. That is a worry! Plastic is the gift that keeps on giving, eh.

And even if the population growth somehow magically stopped, that consumption of power and goods will only increase. By all means, focus on reducing that rate of growth. But profit-driven industry will never seriously address polluting issues unless there are ‘carrot and stick’ measures introduced.

Yes, money talks.

Hate to say it, but I think the only thing that would have the desired effect on human survival is, paradoxically, a pandemic.

Matter of fact, I believe such a thing is inevitable. So, in that sense, there is hope for the future, even if we do nothing.

Hi

Am I the only one who considers it bizarre that some would prefer a global pandemic killing a billion or so people or enforced birth control to looking at a few windmills or solar panels?

Didn’t say I’d prefer a pandemic, Swimfeeder, just that one is probably inevitable. And when it happens, it will make all arguments about what to do to save the planet null and void.

In any case, it’s not a case of one or the other. Even if we magically installed solar panels instantaneously on every rooftop in the world, and wind turbines instantaneously on every square yard of ground on the planet, we’d still be stuffed.

That’s what I was saying, in effect.

Come on Pummie, Jimmy is still right when he says that only a very small proportion of the world’s population produces most of the pollution. You vastly underestimate the size of this planet and the distribution of humans. 71% is covered in water, no pollution! Of the other 29% the majority is uninhabited [Desert, Mountainous or Polar] Add to this the fact that the Earth is, in itself a giant re-cycling plant constantly restoring the balance that man and natural events [Volcanoes, Earth Quakes severe weather events] subject it to.

When London stopped burning coal as the main means of heating, in virtually no time at all the environment changed for the better with no more London Smog. Although bad for humans, these events are local and can be addressed as such.

You have thrown a curved ball Pummie with the mention of plastic being deposited in the oceans. Yes it is a serious issue and one that should be dealt with ASAP, but it has no place on a thread about ‘Global Warming’…Although a serious threat to marine life it will hardly impact on the climate.

Jimmy is also correct when he says we are becoming over populated. It’s turning out to be the Elephant in the room, everybody knows it is a problem, but dare not be the one to stand up and offer solutions. Like Swimmy, it’s easier to focus on Wind Turbines and Solar Panels and pretend it’s not happening…Our response…To send lots of money to lands that can not sustain life but we’ll give it a try anyway. Their response…with food and water in plenty have some more kids…Don’t you just feel guilty for having so much wealth and people in other parts of the world have nothing?..

As to the population issue, yes it is a problem. Even if we reduced per capita pollution and negative impact by 50 percent for example and then double the population, we have lost all benefit, not to mention the impact on other species as far as ecosystems and habitat.

One need not use “forced population” reduction. Voluntary reduction in the rates increase do work although are over ridden by religion and politics. Example: In my country tax breaks are given for having children, thus promoting it. If we took away the tax breaks after one or two, it would at least help.

Hi

We have absolutely no possibility of controlling the world population.

China, one of the most authoritarian Countries in the world tried that and has given up.

The World will change, over the Eons we have had vastly different periods here in the UK, from Ice Ages to tropical conditions.

We humans are far too arrogant if we think we can change that.

What we can do is to look after our own little bit, in our case the UK.

Who wants to return to smogs in the cities or centres of industry?

I don’t.

I am all in favour of developing Renewables here in the UK, look after our own.

We import 5% of our electricity from the EU and pay through the nose for it.

We import vast amounts of Gas and Oil and are dependant on others for the costs we pay.

I have no intention at all of being held to ransom by either EU Countries or Radical Muslims such as Saudi for our Energy Supplies, it is a nonsense.

Renewables and Fracking are the way forward, we should be taking control of our own energy needs.

Good post swim…:023:

April, it sounds like you think there’s no reason to doubt what scientists assert, because in your view scientists are “above” politics and economics, and therefore so are their “results”.

Not always the case, though. In fact, these days, it’s rare.

And then, when the droughts inevitably return and the land again refuses to supply enough food for those optimistically-created kids of that artificially-increased population, they’ll send them back to us as refugees…

Hi

Science is science, it should be above politics, but it is not.

Money talks.

Science is continually evolving, what is perceived wisdom is often total bunkum 10 years later.

That should not stop use listening to it however.

It is a fact of life that with our current state of knowledge we cannot stop the next Ice Age or an increase in the activity of the Sun which will lead to increased temperatures.

What we can do however is to stop pumping out vast amounts of dangerous complex hydrocarbons which we know will affect our health, irrespective of any global warning.

You’ve only got to look at the numbers, April. There are presently 7 billion people alive. Before you go to bed tonight, another half-million people will have been born… somewhere.

It’s hopeless. Legislation has virtually zero effect on it. Birth control has virtually zero effect on it. As medicine evolves, the new births overtake the new deaths.

What we’re living through now is the final stage of human existence. Might take another century for us to finally die off, or we might just go back to “10,000 BC” numbers and level out.

Science and activists and politicians, et al, are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The thing is that our ‘contributions’ are dwarfed by those of China.

OK, we can set an example, but we can’t do much about it.

Hi

In terms of Global Warming, you are correct.

Putting that aside however, in terms of local health effects we can do a lot, for ourselves, our own population.

Well, if there really are “vast amounts”, then there’s no argument there, Swimfeeder. But who’s going to be first?

Seems to me that if we don’t stop intoxicating our air, we’ll die out completely or revert to prehistoric population numbers.

But if we do stop intoxicating our air, we’ll have to give up all the mod cons of our techno/entertainment/mobile/etc society…

… which will be just like being in prehistoric times anyway… :wink:

But to repeat; who’s going to stop first? Who’s going to volunteer to reverse the modernising process that keeps all their citizens fat and happy and content? Even in the western societies, I don’t think people are quite stupified enough, (yet), to roll over for that.

Face it; we’re stuffed. It was a nice run, from protozoa to super-athlete, but it’s over now. :cry: :twisted: :twisted:

Hi

Stop being such a doom monger.

Hydrocarbon pollution is very localised.

I live in a village, 30 miles or so from big urban areas, and less than 5% of their hydrocarbon pollution levels.

But I like being a doom monger! :mrgreen:

Hydrocarbon pollution is very localised.

I live in a village, 30 miles or so from big urban areas, and less than 5% of their hydrocarbon pollution levels.

Yes, but as you pointed out, someone, somewhere is “pumping out vast amounts of dangerous complex hydrocarbons”.

But I just don’t believe that’s a cause of “global warming”. So I don’t think we’re really disagreeing, Swim.

Who finances the research April?
Wouldn’t want to bite the hand that feeds you would you…

I don’t think Jim is being a ‘Doom Monger’ Swim, he has arrived at the only conclusions that would be logical under the circumstances…

With our love of comfort it’s not surprising that people from the far east who will build a car for a bowl of rice, will want some of it. And why not…So every year the demand for oil increases dramatically, and there are applications where there is no substitute… IT WILL RUN OUT…No doubt about it. Did you know that one of the first things to run out will be copper! Think about what we use copper for…Wiring and piping mainly, but a whole host of other things.

Forget about ‘Global Warming’ there are many other threats coming our way in the not too distant future. The Earth will survive, but the human race might not…The Earth will shake us off as easy as a dog shakes off fleas…It’s happened before…

Some are scientists using grants, others as part of their job with various agencies. If you were to ask where the money is coming from on the denial side, it would be lobbyists, hired corporate publicists and propagandists, people that actually have a large moneyed self-interest. The thing with science is that it is reproducible no matter who does it.

The work toward doing the right thing continues:

China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short

While Trump administration rolls back emission controls, the other top emitters are moving quickly to fight climate change by cutting coal and boosting renewables.
Slowing coal use in China and India has put the world’s two most populous countries on track to beat their carbon emission goals under the Paris climate agreement, according to a new analysis.

insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/chin...er&utm_medium=social