Global Warming. Ah, whatever . . .

[Meldrew]

37 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said:

Instead of trying to be funny, why not actually explain why you think a growing population isn't a problem, despite the fact that each additional human being has a carbon footprint from:

1) Breathing - you have to offset the carbon dioxide that human beings breath:

2) Food - people like to eat food from other continents: New Zealand lamb, pineapples, rice, etc. That's all flown, and not on electric or solar-powered planes. Cows produce methane, fertilisers use fossil fuels. Food often needs to be refrigerated. 

3) Clothing and consumer goods, which need to be manufactured, transported and often need to be powered by electricity.

4) Transport and travel - foreign holidays.

 

@Meldrew - how is all of the above offset? Explain to me how the world's leaders and Greta are telling us that we need to cut global emissions as things currently stand, and yet the forecast is that the world's population will grow by another three billion!

It seems to be that you're either incredibly intelligent and have a solution to world problems that has yet to be identified by the elite, or alternatively you're as thick as porcine excrement, and simply don't want to face the fact that we're all facing a crisis. I really, really hope it's the former.  

  

isnt that what the video is saying, overpopulation is the main cause but it's never addressed ? its some other reason, like rich white gammons flying around the world.

i couldnt give a f**k about greta, the planet will be fine, once we've fucked ourselves mother earth will be able to get her house in order, may take a while, but it will get there eventually.

 

https://www.livescience.com/earth-without-people.html

[welshbairn]

Everyone laughed when Trump talked about buying Greenland. I don't think he was joking. Nice place for seriously wealthy retirees late century and a fortune to be made in beachside property developments.

[LongTimeLurker]

Meanwhile, a news topic that the doomsday cultists won't highlight because it complicates their fear porn narrative:

 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, AlbionSaint said:

Interesting to see @virginton has reacted negatively to my two previous posts, but has not actually responded to the points I raised. I'd love to see you explain how CO2 emissions are not related to global population. If climate change is anthropogenic (i.e. a result of human activity) as claimed, then surely the more humans there are the greater the climate change, no? 

The red dot function on the forum exists to downvote abysmal posts and all of your neo-Malthusian 'contributions' are worthy of that treatment alone. 

Gutted for you.

[Miguel Sanchez]

22 hours ago, G51 said:

if every single person decided to murder just one other person in cold blood, emissions would collapse instantly. why is no one talking about this?!?!

This is a good idea and should happen.

[Angus of the Mo]

1 hour ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

This is a good idea and should happen.

I want to be the last man standing

[Angus of the Mo]

2 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Meanwhile, a news topic that the doomsday cultists won't highlight because it complicates their fear porn narrative:

 

I kin I’m being thick here, is this good or bad ?

[Meldrew]

2 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Meanwhile, a news topic that the doomsday cultists won't highlight because it complicates their fear porn narrative:

 

Fear Porn ? Nah mate, its step daughter, hot grannies or a fake taxi  for me, 

Spoiler

 

[LongTimeLurker]

12 minutes ago, Angus of the Mo said:

I kin I’m being thick here, is this good or bad ?

Good because how to store energy from renewables for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow is the last major issue to be sorted before fossil fuels can start to be phased out for purely economic reasons. Greta & co are stuck in a timewarp from 20 years ago when fossil fuels were way cheaper to use than renewables so the only way to stop the former from dominating and build a more sustainable economy was to push the idea that not doing so would melt the ice caps etc etc. Since about 2015 or so solar and wind power have undercut fossil fuels in price terms for electricity generation.

Edited November 16, 2021 by LongTimeLurker

[Angus of the Mo]

2 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Good because how to store energy from renewables for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow is the last major issue to be sorted before fossil fuels can start to be phased out for purely economic reasons. Greta & co are stuck in a timewarp from 20 years ago when fossil fuels were way cheaper to use than renewables so the only way to stop the former from dominating and build a more sustainable economy was to push the idea that not doing so would melt the ice caps etc etc. Since about 2015 or so solar and wind power have undercut fossil fuels in price terms for electricity generation.

Thanks for explaining this. Yes, that’s the goal, storing the energy from the sun, wind and water power.

Cruachan is also a brilliant energy source. We did a tour of the power station. Impressive. Respect to those who lost their lives in the construction. 

[Thorongil]

10 hours ago, AlbionSaint said:

Instead of trying to be funny, why not actually explain why you think a growing population isn't a problem, despite the fact that each additional human being has a carbon footprint from:

1) Breathing - you have to offset the carbon dioxide that human beings breath:

2) Food - people like to eat food from other continents: New Zealand lamb, pineapples, rice, etc. That's all flown, and not on electric or solar-powered planes. Cows produce methane, fertilisers use fossil fuels. Food often needs to be refrigerated. 

3) Clothing and consumer goods, which need to be manufactured, transported and often need to be powered by electricity.

4) Transport and travel - foreign holidays.

 

@Meldrew - how is all of the above offset? Explain to me how the world's leaders and Greta are telling us that we need to cut global emissions as things currently stand, and yet the forecast is that the world's population will grow by another three billion!

It seems to be that you're either incredibly intelligent and have a solution to world problems that has yet to be identified by the elite, or alternatively you're as thick as porcine excrement, and simply don't want to face the fact that we're all facing a crisis. I really, really hope it's the former.  

  

What’s your solution?

[Thorongil]

52 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said:

Well, I don't have any children and so I suppose I have no 'skin in the game', yet. However I do my bit, in fact I am very conscious of my personal impact on the environment. I only travelled abroad once every few years even before lockdown, and took the train when going on business trips, whilst all my colleagues would choose to fly. I don't run a car, as I live in a city, either.

Part of me wonders whether I even want to have kids, given the state of society which is becoming increasingly dystopian, in which case I'm wondering whether I should just live it up and not care about the environment as my carbon emissions would be negligible compared to someone who has just one. It would actually be very liberating not to care about the state of the world beyond the next fifty years. I dread to think where we're headed, I envisage a really unpleasant future to be honest.

 

 

Yeah, so what’s your solution to overpopulation?

[Thorongil]

1 minute ago, AlbionSaint said:

The only ethical things I can think of are taxing people who have more than two, and perhaps giving tax breaks for people who have none or one. Perhaps change our economic system so that it isn't predicated upon constant economic growth, in short we DO need an economic re-set of sorts. There's not an easy solution, but that doesn't mean we just pretend it's not a problem in the first place.

I have read online that conspiracy theorists believe that the whole reason same sex relationships, contraception, feminism and access to free pornography have been encouraged is to help curb population growth. I'm not saying I believe that, but it's interesting when pre-WWII eugenics was widely seen as a solution, and post-WWII these aforementioned things have been promoted instead.

Many 'left-wingers' were also exponents of eugenics, as I'm sure you're aware:

 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left

Like most people I would hate to live in a society in which the government decides who can and who cannot reproduce, it would be horrendous. The only ethical thing is to influence people's choices through (dis)incentives.

What's your solution? 

Ah, a tax on life. On existence itself. Doesn’t strike me as very practical or ethical, and the unintended consequences would be nightmarish. Swapping one imaginary nightmare for a real one only for any tax gain to be squandered anyway and a whole new set of problems. It would also be an impossible sell.

It frustrates me when people masquerade as favouring actual solutions when they are in fact just masturbating their own dogma and nueroses.

My solution would be to invest massively in education and driving up standards of living. It’s the proven way of driving down the birth rate. Let’s accelerate that.

[Thorongil]

1 hour ago, AlbionSaint said:

So I'm 'masturbating my own dogma and neurosis'? You seem to be agreeing with me that overpopulation is a problem and, quite frankly, raising living standards is going to be very difficult given that the more people there are the fewer resources there are to be shared.

By increasing living standards, what exactly do you mean? For example should everyone of the projected eleven billion people want to drive, take foreign holidays and consume MORE than folk currently do, it seems pretty much impossible to deliver that. Even if we produce more green energy and have the capacity to store it, you would still require more (and presumably bigger) homes thus depleting green belt land and requiring more agricultural land, fertilisers and the infrastructure that goes with it. How is that possible? Cars and consumer goods still need to be manufactured, homes heated, food delivered...

If more people lived like I do (cycle, take fewer flights), then it might be sustainable, but I think you are living in a fantasy world. 

Absolutely ridiculous. You accuse me of living in a fantasy world when you are advocating a tax on breeding and will not engage with anything positive or constructive that could threaten your fear wallow narrative. 
 

Do you not think already that there is significant cost in having children? Do you think parents don’t pay VAT on everything they buy for them or that things like childcare don’t generate employment, wages and hence tax? Or is all that just inconvenient? 

The supposed (imminent?) hazards of climate change are allowed to be at all times vague and changeable, but when aspirational solutions are put forward for discussion it’s immediately “we canny do that”. Always negative solutions to any problem to continue the wallow. 

It’s a common neurosis. To blame the world or other people, say it’s all fucked and act all angry about it. It’s really normally a manifestation of other dissatisfaction and a desire to abdicate responsibility for chosen paths.

[Thorongil]

5 hours ago, AlbionSaint said:

You have not answered my question! Just because there's not an easy solution doesn't mean we should ignore the problem. If you believe that Climate Change isn't an imminent problem then say as much. That would be a rational, logical argument. If you agree with the narrative, but then conclude that an increasing population isn't a problem, then explain to me how it isn't.

Don't blame me and accuse me of neurosis merely because I state the facts, because that just doesn't make sense. It's as simple as this:

1) Is Climate Change anthropogenic and does it relate to CO2 emissions?

2) If (1) is correct, then explain how another three billion people will not add to the problem, given that there are currently 7.9 billion people and we're being asked to lower CO2 emissions!

If you disagree with (1), then fine, as that makes sense. But that's what we're being told is happening. Is it a hoax? Are we being lied to?

If we're not being lied to, then the only recourse is to drastically halt population growth, surely? I don't see an alternative, besides DRASTICALLY reducing living standards.

From what I can gather we're already seeing far more unpredictable weather, like the snow in Texas, which leads me to think it's real. Don't shoot the messenger, deal with the facts.

It’s a completely stupid question, asked to waste time, grind down and derail so I’m not entertaining it. It’s easily and commonly understood what is meant by the raising of living standards. 

1. I’m not sure.

2. you say on the one hand we all need to live differently and we need fewer people. What I’ve proposed is exactly that! Make peoples’ lives better to accelerate the decline in the birth rate but you’re not interested.

You then propose to DRASTICALLY reduce the birth rate and you think the answer is taxation and you argue that we need to REDUCE living standards. That’s the most illogical and dogmatic nonsense I’ve read in some time.

It has always snowed in Texas so that is not an anomaly. There have though been weather anomalies since the beginning of the planet so a weather anomaly over a short term even if you hadn’t imagined it is indicative of nothing. 

It’s funny how whatever the anomaly the hypothesis is always the same. Too hot in a hot place, climate change. To cold in a cold place, climate change. Too windy, to raining, too dry, it’s always “oh that’s climate change. 

The last 100 years are a blink in the eye of the planet. Whenever there is a sign of warming it is seized upon, and whenever there is a sign of cooling it is ignored or spun. 

it’s confirmation bias for an industry to milk and which a large subsection of people at home use to   wallow and feel important. 

Apparently we were able to close the hole in the ozone layer by all getting new fridges and changing our deodorant. Pretty sure we can build a sustainable future among the planet which has cooled and warmed for its entire existence by being sensible about things. People using it as an excuse to feel big and terrorise the next generation will only cause unnecessary pain and suffering in the world. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The red dot function on the forum exists to downvote abysmal posts and all of your neo-Malthusian 'contributions' are worthy of that treatment alone. 
Gutted for you.

The neo-Malthusian fruitloop isn't even worth that.

[Thorongil]

44 minutes ago, AlbionSaint said:

 

I see, so essentially you think Climate Change is an industry and the weather attributed to it is normal, well at least that makes some sense, and in which case CO2 emissions don't really matter. Why couldn't you just admit that from the start and save us both some bother?

 

Aye, you're an ostrich or an idiot, just like @virginton, thanks for your contribution.

I did say from the outset that I think climate change is an industry. I made it clear as well that I’m not convinced either way on the issue but that I support environmental responsibility whether things are as we are being told or not. 

I’ve also indicated repeatedly that huge population growth is not a good thing and stated repeatedly that I am glad that the growth is slowing and that appropriate steps should be taken to continue that slowing. 

do co2 emissions matter? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know. Should we try to reduce them in case they do matter? Yes, of course. 

Do I believe the dystopian future being painted for us? No, I do not. 

Why not? Because the people telling us these things have only one track record; that of being wrong. Over and over and over again. And there’s something in it for them, whether it be financial or simply a way for them feel important, create drama and have something to wring their hands and blame others about. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

3 hours ago, AlbionSaint said:

Well fair enough. You may well be right, and I don't believe everything we're told either. I wasn't trying to blackpill you, but an extra three billion people is a lot. When I was growing up the world's population was always quoted as "six billion". But I suppose there;'s nothing either of us can do, and so it's probably better just to be optimistic, as the alternative isn't healthy.

I wouldn't worry too much about world population levels.

Wildfires, storms/floods, crop loss, creeping' desertification", conflicts due to water shortages, mass population movements arising from disappearing water sources (Himalayan glaciers, etc) will make a dent in a loss of population levels over time.  Folk in the UK and in the eastern EU are apparently very concerned about population movements. "You ain't seen nothin' yet". 

[LongTimeLurker]

41 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

...creeping' desertification",...

One of the things that doesn't get highligted by the media because it doesn't fit the prevailing dumbed down narrative is that higher CO₂ levels can actually help to alleviate that. Before anyone screams heretic think about this one a wee bit. If commercial greenhouses are all about keeping plants warmer with elevated CO₂ levels to boost yields...

[Meldrew]

18 hours ago, Thorongil said:

Yeah, so what’s your solution to overpopulation?