Re: Global Warming

The vast, vast, VAST majority of the world's genuine climatologists, researchers and scientists in relevant fields - tell us that human activity is warming the planet.

Given really basic stuff like
the enormous population growth over the last century or so,
the proliferation of coal-burning power stations and the reliance on other fossil fuels,
emissions from millions upon millions of vehicles, factories etc etc
the clearing of huge areas of forests and jungles for whatever reason,
I simply cannot see that there would be no impact.

This, coupled with the fact that most of the world's governments are addressing the issue,
a stance which affects national budgets, imposes costs on individuals and is hardly likely to win votes - every pollie's priority.

Then, when I get down to the nitty gritty to try to see where the anti-science brigade are coming from,
I find that almost every single one of their sources is funded by either vested-interest companies or by ratbag bible-bashing creationists.

Re: Global Warming

All of that might have some impact, Pumice, but then the baby boom of the late 1940s had some impact, too, but we're all still here. Point is, people are born, while other people die.

People seem to forget that vast areas of the earth's surface are intensely hot all year round, viz the Sahara and other deserts. At the same time, there are immense frozen wastes at each pole. The sun, an immense nuclear furnace, heats half the planet each day. And this has been going on for millions of years, yet we're still here. In fact, as you point out, we're thriving and crowding the planet...

I think it is the height of human vanity to imagine that our presence has a worse effect than the sun which scorches and bakes us every single day. Go to the countryside and look at a farmer's field. There'll be a few cows grazing in an area big enough to take a few hundred cows. Now ask yourself what impact those few cows are having on that huge farmer's field. I think the belief in "global warming" depends upon peoples today losing a realistic perspective on the world, (no doubt as a result of being distracted by panem et circenses...).

Well, this "issue" of so-called global warming has been rammed down the electorate's throats for so long now, that a pollie's popularity can only be enhanced if they're seen to be doing something about it. People are like sheep. They'll let themselves be led to the slaughterhouse if they're told it's a food trough.

And I think vested interests are the very people who are touting this nonsense. As for bible-bashing creationists, it's your own fault if you listen to anything they say on any subject, Pumice.

Bottom line: people today desperately need some overarching "Issue" to distract themselves from the real danger in the world, namely the disintegration of nation states and the loss of social identity. That'll finish us off as a species long before a few hot summers will!

Re: Global Warming

An interesting and thought-provoking reply, thank you James !
( You would almost have to be an Australian to be so reasonable and articulate )

Whilst I will meditate on the bulk thereof, I must have a minor pick at this bit I said
"Given really basic stuff like
the enormous population growth over the last century or so ..."
The baby-boomer thing is but a blip.
In the historically brief span of 200 years, we have gone from 1 billion people to 7 billion people (+).
And that one billion had bugger-all individual impact compared to what we see today.
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth/

Re: Global Warming

So then, are GWs concerned about the impact of industrial activity, or the number of individuals actually doing it?

Certainly there are seven times more people on the planet than there were 200 years ago, but obviously only a microscopic percentage of that 7 billion is actually dispersing pollutants into the air! There may be a car in every driveway today, but there isn't a power station on every street corner yet.

To my mind, the only thing the GWs have got right is the disastrous effect of deforestation. That alone is enough reason for alarm, even without the rest of it.

What the planet needs is not more costly regulation on industry; not more ridiculous cynical schemes such as "carbon credits", not more gnashing of teeth over car-pooling, etc; what it needs is 100% effective, cheap, reliable, easily-distributable birth-control. That's where we should be spending our money! That's what we should be having conferences about!

Re: Global Warming

So, what say you, Pumice?

(I get a bit carried away on this topic, but no antagonism intended.)

Re: Global Warming

Do not see any scientific reasons to disbelieve in human caused Climate Change. The ice core research, geological evidence, past rates of change, etc. are not impacted by political, economic or corporate issues. Those are just whitewashing, greenwashing, etc.

Re: Global Warming

Please forgive my tardy response, mate.
Been side-tracked by the cat-fight in another thread.
You are clearly passionate and well-informed re the Global Warming issue.

Of course, you are right that the population explosion is a major concern.
It is a worry precisely because (in my ever humble opinion) you are not right that
"only a microscopic percentage of that 7 billion is actually dispersing pollutants into the air".

Two centuries ago, that would have been true of the vast majority of the planet's small population.
In today's developing world - not so.

Take China (or India or Indonesia etc etc).
Back then, a small ruling class - the rest living off their rice paddy with maybe a house cow or a pig.
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.

We might think that only a relative few are "dispersing pollutants" but collectively it cannot be anything other than enormous.
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.

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.

Re: Global Warming

No wuks, mate.

Yes, that's true.

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

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.

Re: Global Warming

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?

Re: Global Warming

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.