eliotness

I have seen some of the worst pollution in the world and know the effects of pollution of the last 2 centuries. I am convinced that mankind needs to do more to address pollution, a lot more. I know the effect of pollution on fauna and flora, so I guess it would be naive to say that the atmospheric discharges will not effect the localised weather and eventually the earth's climate.

The problem is how to quantify man's contribution to any changes in the climate. Certainly politicians have from Rio onwards come out with all the right phrases, but so little real action has happened and I expect, unfortunately, the same result from Paris. Shifting production and associated pollution to other parts of the world is not a solution, neither was "carbon credits". However I am certain that the current increase rate of the human population will easily nullify any token gestures that come out of Paris. Thus we have 2 interlinked problems that need to be addressed, but the problem of pollution, although massive, would be relatively easy to solve compared to asking people to limit the size of their families and facing the wrath of various religious groups.

So what to do ? Nothing should and cannot be an option. Try to reduce pollution, in all its facets, reduce fossil fuels usage (but do genuine LIFE CYCLE ANALYSES of any proposed alternative power sources), strive for even more efficiency in electrical equipment, make sure your car/motorbike is serviced regularly, reduce wasteful packaging (especially plastic) and a host of other things, but they need to be done worldwide, with the heaviest burden on the worst polluters (try and get that through the UN !)

From my experience trying to get people to change their lifestyles will be the most difficult problem and unless the rise in sea levels cause massive flooding worldwide and the Gulf Stream suddenly stops bringing Polar type winter weather to Western Europe, unless there is massive crop failures and millions starving, then and only then will people think about change. That unfortunately how people work. How to introduce sensible family planning I cannot answer. China tried for a while but seems to be relaxing the rules recently. It is more of a religious

and cultural issue, so 99.994% impossible to solve.

But, and it's a big BUT can mankind reverse any change in the earth's climate ? I regret to say with the present bunch of politicians and the lifestyle expectancy of so many people, not a cat in hells chance. So the scientists better come up with some fancy technology soon to help us cope with a changing climate.

Up2u2, I am not an alarmist, therefore I stated "pollution should concern us all". Why do you have a problem with that ? Some people are lucky and live in places where pollution is not a concern, but with many others it has a constant effect.

After over 30 years in environmental management, I have a hard earned right "to believe".

I am not convinced that man made climate change is a fact, therefore I said "may possibly". I am not a denier, just not 100% convinced and your posts are not helping to convince me any further.

So what part of technology development do you think will definitely allow an increased birth rate ? I haven't got a crystal ball, but human ingenuity is a wonderful thing, which is why I said "may", trying to be an optimist rather than a pessimist. Do you not understand the reasoning behind that ?

Personal transport is a difficult one because of the pollution experienced in big cities. However the pollution caused by public and commercial transport is much worse. If you've ever considered what a full "life cycle analysis" of the various forms of transport would show then you would appreciate why I said "a tiny bit of the overall pollution problem". Just think about the environmental damage caused by building railways in the first place. In the UK the last steel mill making railway lines closed years ago, so now all the replacement track is manufactured in India. Try putting a carbon footprint on that. Railway sleepers were originally made from a tropical hard-wood, rain forest depletion. Now made from reinforced concrete, again a huge carbon footprint.

And finally I hate being told what to believe, I make my judgement on my experience.

Sorry you misunderstand me. Dealing with pollution should concern us all NOW, immediately and forever in the future. I believe, from experience, that gases that may possibly be contributing to a change in the current earth's climate are just one, albeit quite important, facet of the problem.

Man has over the centuries developed technologies that have made sustaining a larger population possible, from crop rotation, mechanised farming, electrical equipment, pesticides etc etc. Whilst I believe the current technologies are unable to sustain the current growth rate, that does not mean in the future technologies will be developed that may support a greater increase in birthrate. Changes in means of propulsion of personal transport are only a tiny bit of the overall pollution problem.

So no I don't think "we are all doomed", but we must not continue to breed as though it was still 1815, while we develop new technologies (not possible to put a timescale on that) and reduce pollution in ALL its manifestations.

As for reducing the population, well apart from a few politicians, bankers and lawyers, I don't think that is an option, although saying that several regimes in the 20th century tried and ISIS seems to be making an attempt.

'should', 'I believe', 'may possibly', 'may', 'I don't think', 'tiny bit'

So kick back put your feet up and that 'should', 'I believe' 'tiny bit' and 'may possibly sought ALL the issues out.

Ok I got it.

I feel better already.

Sir, I was trying to be reasonable and use words that would facilitate further debate. You however wish no debate and rather like the Pope think your arguments are infallible and not open to debate. Furthermore you STILL have not mentioned what internationally recognised qualifications and work experience you have achieved that make you THE expert on this matter. At this point I shall rest my case.

You miss quote me sir. Nowhere did I say the earth's population has to be reduced. What I said was the current growth rare of mankind is unsustainable. I have never said I do believe in GW. Climate Change has always happened and THAT ALONE cannot be denied. Exactly what is man's contribution to any current change in the climate is what this thread should be about.

The activities of human population is responsible for significant pollution on this planet, of which greenhouse gases are but one aspect, but Mother Nature contributes too, also significantly, much more than mankind as Climate Change occurred long before we did and even when mankind was just a few million soles living in caves. Birth control is opposed by most of the world's religious groups, who show no sign of facing reality. That is why I say your "the end is nigh" stance on climate will be of no consequence compared to the problems arising from a world population that can't be fed, housed or employed.

I note again, with amusement, that yet again you completely ignore my query as to your qualifications and work experience.

So your argument is we are all doomed so what's the point in being concerned with the GW / CC issue.

Sorry you misunderstand me. Dealing with pollution should concern us all NOW, immediately and forever in the future. I believe, from experience, that gases that may possibly be contributing to a change in the current earth's climate are just one, albeit quite important, facet of the problem.

Man has over the centuries developed technologies that have made sustaining a larger population possible, from crop rotation, mechanised farming, electrical equipment, pesticides etc etc. Whilst I believe the current technologies are unable to sustain the current growth rate, that does not mean in the future technologies will be developed that may support a greater increase in birthrate. Changes in means of propulsion of personal transport are only a tiny bit of the overall pollution problem.

So no I don't think "we are all doomed", but we must not continue to breed as though it was still 1815, while we develop new technologies (not possible to put a timescale on that) and reduce pollution in ALL its manifestations.

As for reducing the population, well apart from a few politicians, bankers and lawyers, I don't think that is an option, although saying that several regimes in the 20th century tried and ISIS seems to be making an attempt.

So Steven, you think both Rick and I are not credible. So pray tell what qualifications and work experience do you have to make such a sweeping statement. I notice your mate up2u2 refused to reply to a similar question. Also like him are you a denier of the unsustainable birth rate too ?

With the overwhelming evidence pointing elsewhere no, you're not credible.

I don't recall anybody denying the birthrate is sustainable. But that in itself is already a deflection, to which I will not further respond.

2

Anyone with a brain knows that an unsustainable birthrate is the core of any environmental problems, from pollution, man-made effect on climate, food supply, deforestation, regional conflicts etc etc etc. That sir is not a deflection it is the foundation that needs to be addressed now, not in 300 years as your mate sugests.

But of course both of you continue to decline any mention of any (internationally recognised) qualifications and work experience you may have. Says it all really !

So what is the reduction in population required and over what time frame to eliminate GW / CC? The 300 years is quoted in the Paper I linked too but that has included limiting GW too +2^OC and reducing peoples Carbon footprint.

Currently the global population is 7.3 Billion so what does the population have to be reduced too and what time frame is involved?

It is your idea I am just asking for some detail on how it can be achieved.

You miss quote me sir. Nowhere did I say the earth's population has to be reduced. What I said was the current growth rare of mankind is unsustainable. I have never said I do believe in GW. Climate Change has always happened and THAT ALONE cannot be denied. Exactly what is man's contribution to any current change in the climate is what this thread should be about.

The activities of human population is responsible for significant pollution on this planet, of which greenhouse gases are but one aspect, but Mother Nature contributes too, also significantly, much more than mankind as Climate Change occurred long before we did and even when mankind was just a few million soles living in caves. Birth control is opposed by most of the world's religious groups, who show no sign of facing reality. That is why I say your "the end is nigh" stance on climate will be of no consequence compared to the problems arising from a world population that can't be fed, housed or employed.

I note again, with amusement, that yet again you completely ignore my query as to your qualifications and work experience.

Up2u2, you have never responded to my claim and several other posters, that the population growth of mankind poses a greater threat to "life on earth as we know it". Furthermore you concentrate on CO2 emissions, completely ignoring the basket of other "pollutants" that are an immediate and deadly threat to the health of mankind and not some possible risk in the future. Your dismissal of the Wall Street Journal was to be expected and I'd guess you're a Guardian reader, assuming that is you are British. I believe somewhere between the Pope and Marsha Blackburn is the truth, but extremist views from BOTH sides are making sensible debate impossible.

Yes I did. I asked what peer reviewed scientific Modelling you have on the amount of population reduction is required to stabilise GW. Very important to remember eliot I base my opinions on credible peer reviewed studies / research so no Opinion Editorial rubbish from Murdoch's WSJ or Woman's Weekly. I have little to no patients with stupidity.

I did read an article based on agricultural, economic, environmental Modelling that indicated a +8^OC increase in Global Temperatures would only be able to support a population of 750M people. So if we did nothing about GW then the population would be forcibly cut by 90%. 7.3B down to 0.75B by the end of the Century.

Not sure exactly how it could be done because you are going to have to start reducing now. No children for the current generation, shut down manufacturing, bulldoze suburbs as they become vacant, disconnect power infrastructure, relocate cities. Not sure how you would go about it but just off the top of my head say reduction of 3.5 Billion people over the next 40 years maybe and begin shutting down manufacturing and infrastructure.

There is a study here but it seems to need limiting the GW to +2^OC by the end of the Century using renewable energy then a slow decline in population growth over 300 years.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf

If you were to just use a decrease in population what would the modelling look like? How many and how quickly?

So you've just admitted that you have no qualifications or work experience in any environmental, especially climate, science. You are an avid reader of selective information on the internet. You called me stupid, rather insulting as you sir have no idea of my qualifications and experience. I could enlighten you but I feel sinking to your level is rather below me.

As for the earth's population, are you so blind as to what's happening that you need "computer modelling" to make any choices. As someone said earlier re computer modelling "bullshit in, bullshit out" Oh I could comment further,but to argue with idiots is to fall down to their level, so I'm bored and possibly "out of here".

I didn't say I didn't have any qualifications just haven't done any research on reducing Earth's population to nullify GW / CC. Nor did I say you were stupid. I simply have no time for the stupidity of Murdoch's WSJ Opinion Editorial because when you actually chase down the facts it always turns out to be a load of BS. You may as well read the Woman's Weekly.

I am just asking what you base your view that reducing the Global population to address GW / CC. What reduction in population would be required, what time frame is involved? There is some mathematical calculations on the Paper I linked too but that seems to include a mixture of renewable energy limiting GW to 2^OC, reducing peoples Carbon usage combined with a gradual decline of population over some 400 year time frame.

It seems to be your pet project to address GW / CC so I assumed you had read up on it and had an understanding of the process required. I have an open mind if you have some scientific research on the issue on how it can be achieved I will be interested to read it. No need to get upset I am just asking.

I'm bored !

Up2u2, you have never responded to my claim and several other posters, that the population growth of mankind poses a greater threat to "life on earth as we know it". Furthermore you concentrate on CO2 emissions, completely ignoring the basket of other "pollutants" that are an immediate and deadly threat to the health of mankind and not some possible risk in the future. Your dismissal of the Wall Street Journal was to be expected and I'd guess you're a Guardian reader, assuming that is you are British. I believe somewhere between the Pope and Marsha Blackburn is the truth, but extremist views from BOTH sides are making sensible debate impossible.

Yes I did. I asked what peer reviewed scientific Modelling you have on the amount of population reduction is required to stabilise GW. Very important to remember eliot I base my opinions on credible peer reviewed studies / research so no Opinion Editorial rubbish from Murdoch's WSJ or Woman's Weekly. I have little to no patients with stupidity.

I did read an article based on agricultural, economic, environmental Modelling that indicated a +8^OC increase in Global Temperatures would only be able to support a population of 750M people. So if we did nothing about GW then the population would be forcibly cut by 90%. 7.3B down to 0.75B by the end of the Century.

Not sure exactly how it could be done because you are going to have to start reducing now. No children for the current generation, shut down manufacturing, bulldoze suburbs as they become vacant, disconnect power infrastructure, relocate cities. Not sure how you would go about it but just off the top of my head say reduction of 3.5 Billion people over the next 40 years maybe and begin shutting down manufacturing and infrastructure.

There is a study here but it seems to need limiting the GW to +2^OC by the end of the Century using renewable energy then a slow decline in population growth over 300 years.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf

If you were to just use a decrease in population what would the modelling look like? How many and how quickly?

So you've just admitted that you have no qualifications or work experience in any environmental, especially climate, science. You are an avid reader of selective information on the internet. You called me stupid, rather insulting as you sir have no idea of my qualifications and experience. I could enlighten you but I feel sinking to your level is rather below me.

As for the earth's population, are you so blind as to what's happening that you need "computer modelling" to make any choices. As someone said earlier re computer modelling "bullshit in, bullshit out" Oh I could comment further,but to argue with idiots is to fall down to their level, so I'm bored and possibly "out of here".

So Steven, you think both Rick and I are not credible. So pray tell what qualifications and work experience do you have to make such a sweeping statement. I notice your mate up2u2 refused to reply to a similar question. Also like him are you a denier of the unsustainable birth rate too ?

^^^

There is a very interesting scientific paper out which shows that as questions grow more complex, a very high consensus becomes a weakness, not a strength.

Something simple, like 2 + 2 = 4, naturally gets 100% consensus (or near to it), something more complex (can subatomic particles travel faster than light?) gets a lower score.

When a social question like "Is Kim Jong Un a swell guy?" (I paraphrase) gets 99.2%, we know something fishy is going on.

Then you have climate change, an extraordinarily complex problem, with multiple variables in a chaotic environment. When somebody turns up and says it is proved to the extent of 99.994%, you know something idiotic is going on.

Usually it's a combination of factors: stupid survey questions, selective winnowing of results and over-simplistic analysis. But the Green/Left is so in love with the idea of solidarity, that they trot out these meaningless surveys on a regular basis so as to achieve their only goal -- to silence all opposition.

Fortunately, it isn't working -- people aren't as stupid as the Green/Left always likes to believe. And the politicians can do nothing but make grandiose declarations of climate penance that amount to nothing.

As a certain person questioned my qualifications and experience a while ago, a mention of HIS qualifications and experience might give his argument some credibility which currently it seems rather lacking as it appears Rick has just blown him out of the water.

Huh, what planet are you living on? Rick has list all credibility long time ago.

Unfortunately I live on the real planet earth. So you only think someone is credible if they agree with you ? Interesting concept, bit like the Pope and the Catholic Church.

^^^

There is a very interesting scientific paper out which shows that as questions grow more complex, a very high consensus becomes a weakness, not a strength.

Something simple, like 2 + 2 = 4, naturally gets 100% consensus (or near to it), something more complex (can subatomic particles travel faster than light?) gets a lower score.

When a social question like "Is Kim Jong Un a swell guy?" (I paraphrase) gets 99.2%, we know something fishy is going on.

Then you have climate change, an extraordinarily complex problem, with multiple variables in a chaotic environment. When somebody turns up and says it is proved to the extent of 99.994%, you know something idiotic is going on.

Usually it's a combination of factors: stupid survey questions, selective winnowing of results and over-simplistic analysis. But the Green/Left is so in love with the idea of solidarity, that they trot out these meaningless surveys on a regular basis so as to achieve their only goal -- to silence all opposition.

Fortunately, it isn't working -- people aren't as stupid as the Green/Left always likes to believe. And the politicians can do nothing but make grandiose declarations of climate penance that amount to nothing.

Don't forget our friend is stating over and over "it's global warming". Glad I'm not in the fur coat business !

^^^

There is a very interesting scientific paper out which shows that as questions grow more complex, a very high consensus becomes a weakness, not a strength.

Something simple, like 2 + 2 = 4, naturally gets 100% consensus (or near to it), something more complex (can subatomic particles travel faster than light?) gets a lower score.

When a social question like "Is Kim Jong Un a swell guy?" (I paraphrase) gets 99.2%, we know something fishy is going on.

Then you have climate change, an extraordinarily complex problem, with multiple variables in a chaotic environment. When somebody turns up and says it is proved to the extent of 99.994%, you know something idiotic is going on.

Usually it's a combination of factors: stupid survey questions, selective winnowing of results and over-simplistic analysis. But the Green/Left is so in love with the idea of solidarity, that they trot out these meaningless surveys on a regular basis so as to achieve their only goal -- to silence all opposition.

Fortunately, it isn't working -- people aren't as stupid as the Green/Left always likes to believe. And the politicians can do nothing but make grandiose declarations of climate penance that amount to nothing.

As a certain person questioned my qualifications and experience a while ago, a mention of HIS qualifications and experience might give his argument some credibility which currently it seems rather lacking as it appears Rick has just blown him out of the water.

Again you state "consensus on global Warming is 99.994%". Firstly the article in the Wall Street Journal questions that figure and implies that whilst the majority state that Climate Change is happening, that is the consensus of those questioned who bothered to reply (not dissimilar to some of the polls in Thailand). Secondly, the consensus of scientists did not state that any change was exclusively man-made, and finally there were very few suggestions as to how, if man-made, this should be addressed by various governments. Yet again you ignore the question of unsustainable population growth.

Up2u2, you have never responded to my claim and several other posters, that the population growth of mankind poses a greater threat to "life on earth as we know it". Furthermore you concentrate on CO2 emissions, completely ignoring the basket of other "pollutants" that are an immediate and deadly threat to the health of mankind and not some possible risk in the future. Your dismissal of the Wall Street Journal was to be expected and I'd guess you're a Guardian reader, assuming that is you are British. I believe somewhere between the Pope and Marsha Blackburn is the truth, but extremist views from BOTH sides are making sensible debate impossible.

Dear uksomchai

Congratulations on such a good and interesting post. It is interesting that a certain person has yet to reply and attack what you stated so well.

I'll buy you a beer if we ever meet up.

Hundreds of the worlds top scientisrs studied thousands and thousands of documents and overwhelmingly determined humans are part of the cause of climate change.

The science is settled.

Yet there are still flat earthers that dont believe it.

OK I agree with you, now please quantify the part of the cause humans are responsible for and how that is to be addressed.

All I said was check the dictionary, and goodness me you forgot. Says it all really !

"....Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess"...."

I think this topic is beyond you eliot. Climate Scientists do not predict the weather next week. Meteorologists do. Maybe you need to check a dictionary.

meteorologist

ˌmiːtɪəˈrɒlədʒɪst/

noun

noun: meteorologist; plural noun: meteorologists

an expert in or student of meteorology; a weather forecaster.

Your assertion sir is slander and the worse sort of personal attack. You have no idea of my qualifications and experience and you refuse to read the Oxford English Dictionary.

Please Moderators block this individual who is reverting to insulting personal comments rather than staying on topic.

One global strategy that they could bring in right now is NOT to fly thousands of government lackeys to Paris or wherever to generate lots of hot air. The ultimate hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" morons that flock to the next exotic location for the next meaningless conference on something they can't change anyway.

One might think these clowns had never heard of video conferencing.

BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to be held in Paris France Nov. 30th - Dec. 11th is probably one of the most crucial Global Government meeting in respect of addressing GW / CC since the Kyoto Protocol 18 years ago. Nations are expected to enter their respective, legally binding CO₂ emissions reduction schemes and targets. To suggest that these crucial meetings between Governments and Nations around the World can be 'skyped' in, is amusing. The Carbon 'footprint' of this meeting would have absolutely ZERO effect on Global CO₂ emissions. The various commitments of Nations Governments will dictate the extent of GW / CC over the next 15 years. The higher the CO₂ emissions targets the higher the amount of GW and the higher degree of CC and the higher the potential of extreme weather events, reduction in Polar caps, higher sea levels and greater Ocean acidification. So these effects can certainly be managed if based on the scientific research. Far from meaningless.

One thing I am absolutely certain of is the 'Merchants of Doubt' like Congresswoman Blackburn will be ramping up the GW / CC misinformation in an attempt to protect Fossil Fuel polluters from being effected.

"....BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence......."

As someone who accepts the scientific evidence of GW / CC I would hope the silence is absolutely deafening on this absurd suggestion.

I hate to disappoint you, but with all the conflicts going on in Syria, Iraq, Afgan, Ukraine and the threat from Iran, all the problems with mass migration, the global economy and much more, do you really honestly believe the current politicians will do anything concrete. If you think so, then again I say, very seriously, with no humour this time, "go outside and smell the coffee".

. Furthermore, climate scientists can't even predict with 99.99% accuracy the weather next week, so predicting 20+ years in advance has got to be "just an educated guess".

I think you have confused Climate Scientists with Meteorologists.

Please check the Oxford English Dictionary for the definition of "Meteorology", I think it's you who are confused.

eliot really? A qualified Meteorologist deals in the forecasting of short to medium term specific WEATHER conditions. A Climate Scientist deals with average weather for an extensive regional zone averaged out over substantial periods of time. If you want the weather forecast for a city or small regional area for tomorrow or a 'guestimate' for next week you will be guided by a Meteorologist. Two very different disciplines.

W

Goodness me eliot.

All I said was check the dictionary, and goodness me you forgot. Says it all really !

Eliotness, agreed the debate over CC is not the issue here, but how to invest in a more more sustainable future. It's not about how to correct unsustainable lifestyles and birth rates, this implies a defeated attitude.

Let me explain by way of example. In the UK for example, there were feed-in tariffs (now scrapped by new administration) for renewable energy sources.

However, there is still a huge potential for hydroelectric schemes, that would provide a much greater return with correct help from Govt's. Hydro schemes however, can have riparian issues (shared ownership) issues, but there are others out there in possible public ownership that are perceived more as a liability, than an asset, but which just need promoting to attract capital investment.

Currently, the U.K. obtains around 20% of its energy from renewable sources, but much much more needs to be done, across all sectors. This should be the focus, for Govt, not bailing out the corruption of failing financial institutions.

Sorry my friend but I can't see how you can invest in a more sustainable future without correcting unsustainable lifestyles and birthrates. This is not a defeatist attitude as you suggest but rather a realistic one.

I do agree with your comment on the demise of feed-in tariffs, such a pity.

Hydroelectric schemes are great, but only if you have the right geology in remote areas. So Norway great, Scotland in a few places, Switzerland no because every valley is populated.

Tidal power is potentially massive but avoided by most governments. Not sure why, perhaps you can explain.

Wind power has helped but its efficiency is poor and hundreds of windmills are, quite frankly a blight on the landscape.

I do also agree that the current governments are a problem, but they are all the same, votes count. Much more needs to be done to address these problems, e.g. ISO 14001 accreditation shouldn't be voluntary it should be compulsory. That would be a start. Actually the ISO 14000 series has many standards that, if followed would make a difference.

Dear up2u2

I think because you are so focused you are missing my reasoning. Environmental degradation and environmental pollution (the 2 are not necessarily related) have many aspects, some with very lethal consequences to mankind. No one with any knowledge of history can deny the earth's climate changes over time. Mankind's emissions, I could say pollution, but whilst it's easy to quantify industrial emissions, it's rather more difficult to quantify emissions from daily life, contribute to that given by nature. The debate is over what degree mankind's emissions are contributing to any climate change being experienced currently and into the foreseeable future.

If one accepts that mankind's emissions do contribute significantly to factors effecting climate change (ok I'm a maybe on that one but not in denial), then the question is what can everyone on the planet do about it. Very easy if you live in a rich 1st world country, but if you live on the bread-line in a 3rd world country then the choices are few and far between. Any action proposed by politicians in the 1st world is questionable to say the least. Big corporations have very powerful lobbying groups in all 1st world nations. A lot of politicians are employed directly by big corporations. There are limited things we all can do off our own backs, like as you say, use less plastic bags and more fuel efficient cars, but compared to the e.g. the cement factory down the road, that is just a tiny drop in the ocean. What is needed is major changes in our lifestyle and that can only be enforced by governments. Not exactly a vote winner me thinks !

So pray tell what is your solution to an unsustainable lifestyle and an unsustainable birth rate ?

Whenever this is brought up its always good for a huge laugh. Usually, its frustrated teachers who 20-40 years ago would have been failing themselves. Thus may not be the op, jus sayin...

In the US many, many students are passed thru levels who go on to graduate and are functional illiterates. Why not here? Judging by the genius UK teachers I've taught with only one graduated university, that's about 7%.

So why the stress bro? Education isn't really important to you either.

Further, how, where is this third world education system going to provide remedial services and whose paying? No one ever brings up this gem.

Moreover, I hate blaming the system, I won't, but here I cut some slack. These kids have poor teachers, crap books, one hundred white faces, Filipino and N English accects, 40C heat in the class, poverty, family issues, peer pressures...and you want to shitcan their grade because they did not do X and Y in your class. Hope you have a ton of professional experience to make that assessment. Your tests and teaching, etc...not saying here it was you but maybe in part it was. First year teachers Im lookjng so hard at you. The tefl flunkies.

Why NOT give them the minimum grade I mean you're not a real teacher? You never had a lick of interest in teaching until now. This is just some job that keeps you in Thailand. Pretty disingenuous really.

Thailand wants them to pass. Pass them fools,

Finally, the system allows you to enter a grade of 50%, how much more of a fail do you need to brand on these children dear "teachers"?

Utter tripe from you as usual. Almost nothing you say is intelligent or informed. Your habitual attacks on native speakers teaching in Thailand are disgusting ignorant rants that serve to make things more difficult for everyone else, including the students. Thai education is all the better for every moment you keep your ill-informed mouth shut.

I've been out here for decades, lived and traveled to tens of countries and spoken to ten thousand non native speakers of English. You know who are the worst? Those from Northern England, Scotland, N Ireland and East London. Its not just the pronunciation, its all the atrocious slang that they seem clueless to strip from their speech.

When I listen to these plebs, I honestly have no idea what they are saying half the time and therefore if I have no idea, how possibly can their students?

Its really no why American English is now target language choice from MENA to Korea and all nations in between, including Hong Kong which has forgotten the British entirely.

As for my attacks on native speakers, if the shoe fits...

1. I can think of no English person save one that I have ever worked with that has had a BA. All contractors or on a diy B visa.

2. Most Europeans and even South Africans have a more lovely accent than those from UK I had mentioned. Ouch, sorry.

3. I've always been totally unimpressed with the work ethic, but there are plenty of lazy teachers.

4. I have never understood through other teachers, Thai teachers or students that these persons were good teachers.

5. Government is starting to require background checks on UK individuals. Why? There must be a reason.

At the end of the day, objectively speaking these people are not persons anyone should be modeling their speech on, quite simple really.

Funny, because Thailand throughly does not understand English, it hires these people thinking they are getting a Welsh accent but alas, its just "Brummie". Everything spouted from their mouths is some sort of indecipherable regional slang spoken with with this atrocious tongue. They simply cant help it, no education, no clue.

I'm calling bs on it.

Did you know many English persons also go to English language schools to reduce their insufferable accents so they may obtain employment in greater England? No joke. So why are you in my face about pointing this out?

The lovely accent that used to be known as the Queen's English is now known in the gutter as "posh English" - the plebs berating their own offical, proper langauge. Again - posh...slang. The slang is just absolutely never ending with the lower classes in this country. It spews forth endlessly, they can't even contain it in an office environment even when the office is dedicated to the English language.

Given the general lack of diploma, speech, criminality, drinking issues its only a matter of time before Thailand wakes up.

Yeah, the Visayan Filipino accent is awful and what Asian wants to be taken for a nation commonly referred to as the "sick man of Asia".

Does anyone think that a Thai student speaking with an Cockney, Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester accent could be a good thing? Ever? Ever? No. Not ever.

You are so very funny, and so elitist. Most English Southerners have strong accents too. Not even most programs on the BBC have "Queen's English". For a lot of English history the Royal family and their lackeys have spoken French, Dutch and recently German. Queen's English is an invention of the "would be elite", of which you sir obviously have pretensions to join. I have met Swedes who talked with Geordie accents, Chinese with Scouse accents, Indians with Brummy accents, amusing yes, wrong NOT. One of the main reasons that English is accepted around the world is because it's flexible and doesn't have the strict rules many other languages have. So please keep your racist and elitist comments to yourself.

One of the problems however, in giving air time to people like Marsha Blackburn is it diverts attention away from the more important issue, of the need to formulate global energy strategies at Paris. It's about listening to the ideas of environmentalists like Aubrey Meyer and James Lovelock, not Politicians merely interested in their own political rhetoric.

One global strategy that they could bring in right now is NOT to fly thousands of government lackeys to Paris or wherever to generate lots of hot air. The ultimate hypocrisy of the "do as I say, not as I do" morons that flock to the next exotic location for the next meaningless conference on something they can't change anyway.

One might think these clowns had never heard of video conferencing.

BTW, how many GW believers are willing to give up all fossil fuelled transportation and electricity, right now? What's that, I can't hear anyone, just a deafening silence.

What an inane post. Nobody is suggesting we all move back into caves but that doesn't mean we can't at least try to do something about it.

So, pray tell, what are you yourself actually doing to reduce your carbon footprint ?

Dear up2u2

You so missed my point as you are totally focused on GW and CO2. Those events I mentioned killed hundreds of thousands of people and millions of other creatures. They did not effect the earth's climate, but chemicals can kill without climate change. As for the coffee, 555 you so missed the point.

Who said there was an "overwhelming consensus of an ice age prediction during the 70s" ? Certainly no me, all I said was that is was a prediction and besides the science of climate changes was only in its infancy in the 70s.

Exactly, the small segment of the scientific community who predicted a possible Ice Age in the 70's has absolutely NO relevance to the discussion on modern day GW / CC. Absolutely zero so why even mention of it?

You sir are so far to the right, or maybe extreme left that it's scary. I did a degree in Environmental Chemistry in the early 70s. At that time there was only a handful of universities in the UK doing such degrees. Climate scientists in the 70s were as rare as hens teeth. The only organisation that was really concerned with the climate was the MOD (or in the early 20th century it was called the War Ministry or something). Their reasons were military operations, but they kept a detailed record of climate around areas of the British Empire that were comprehensive. Now for you to totally dismiss such peoples findings and predictions is both unfair to some well qualified (at their time) and sincere individuals. But if climate change is an ongoing thing, why do you want to dismiss totally the elders of that science ? By all means say that knowledge of the factors affecting climate change have advanced in recent years, but to say previous predictions have no relevance is so so extreme, definitely not scientific but rather quasi religious and fundamentalist at that.

Anyone who says that the climate isn't changing is at best a fool, but there are plenty of those about. The subject of the debate should be what emissions are mankind causing that has an effect on the environment, climate being just one aspect. Did Bhopal affect the global climate ? Did 2 nuclear bombs affect the climate ? Did Lead in petrol affect the climate ? Have massive oil spills affected the climate ? Go round the mine dumps in Johannesburg with a Geiger Counter (I expect either you or your wife has gold rings or chains) and see the scale of radioactive pollution, but not affecting global temperatures. Just imagine the amount of methane given off by an ever increasing earth population that defecate. I suspect you are focused on a very narrow topic, you need to go out and "smell the coffee".

One of the problems however, in giving air time to people like Marsha Blackburn is it diverts attention away from the more important issue, of the need to formulate global energy strategies at Paris. It's about listening to the ideas of environmentalists like Aubrey Meyer and James Lovelock, not Politicians merely interested in their own political rhetoric.

So you believe only those who agree with you should be given air time ? Living in Thailand, I seem to recall recently someone else saying much the same thing and you know what most posters thought of his idea !

Ellot, the problem is some politicians at Paris may not be focussing on the long term issues, to help format sound energy strategies. When you have people like this saying such ridiculous comments, which are so different to consensus of scientific opinion (re: CC and evolution) it is a bit worrying when these are the individuals helping to decide a way forward. We need people at Paris with the foresight of Brunel, and not entrenched in views so distinct to main stream.

I actually totally agree with you. Politicians, from democracies, world wide are purely focused on the next election. 5 year plans are the norm. In South Africa some of the Afrikaner churches actually preach that the black man is descended from apes, but the whites were created by God. I just don't trust the opinion of anyone with such views, however I will never ban them from saying what they believe, just have a chuckle to myself.