21 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

IMO, population control measures/incentives were needed back in the 70's.  The earth does not have the ability to sustain 7 billion humans.  Starvation, malnutrition, and number of poor people without quality of life is growing every year. 

The way I see "technology" and human endeavours in my lifetime is that on one hand we have highly educated minds spending their lives looking for new ways to save people with medical treatments and technology, then on the other hand we highly educated engineers working for military purposes developing new ways to kill people with better aircraft, better drones, better bombs, better weapons.  Very contradictory.  

 

I believe as I have said before, the reason for most problems in the world is people's "beliefs" or religion.  Religion still plays a role in governments as it has since the middle ages and before.  Along with human greed and power, our species is not evolving in a way that will sustain itself.  

 

Until we as a species adopt reason and science instead of relying on faith based mythologies, we are doomed

 

Many countries do not have any population issues, in fact have declining populations. Global population growth rate is slowing. Population is expected to peak in 2100, 11 billion,and then decline according to the UN. Control, by whom?

Just now, WalkingOrders said:

judithcurry.com

You of course know that she gets a lot of funding from conservative organizations, do you not?

 

Hey Judy get on the gravy train!!

35 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

IMO, population control measures/incentives were needed back in the 70's.  The earth does not have the ability to sustain 7 billion humans.  Starvation, malnutrition, and number of poor people without quality of life is growing every year. 

So you want white people to commit racial suicide? (our race has been shrinking since the 1970s)

or you want us to limit the population of other races? (they've all been breeding fast, except Japanese and Thais who also have shrinking populations)

 

It's got to be one of the other.

Good luck selling either option.

32 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

 About 90 scientists agree. They are on the payroll.

 

Thousands don't.

I can remember when some scientists said smoking

did not damage your health.

 

So you are saying everything is OK in the World

nothing is a problem,nothing at all to worry about,

all these dire reports are FAKE news,(heard that before) from someone !

regards Worgeordie

 

4 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

So you are saying everything is OK in the World

nothing is a problem,nothing at all to worry about,

Nothing for me to worry about, as an old guy, I'll be dead in a few years.

And the scientists (crackpots) are always predicting doom in 10 years, I've already outlived their predictions by 60 years.

 

 

Just now, BritManToo said:

Nothing for me to worry about, as an old guy, I'll be dead in a few years.

You have kids,as I do ,I want a future for them,you don't seem to give a <deleted>.

that's the difference.with a reply like that.

regards Worgeordie

Mmmm,

                 the big question...

 

                                                Well, it's not looking very good is it?

Around the bend.

3 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

You have kids,as I do ,I want a future for them,you don't seem to give a <deleted>.

that's the difference.with a reply like that.

I've had more than you, spread around the world, that's about the best anyone can do to increase their kids survival rates. Don't put all your offspring in one geographical or genetic basket.

Sounds like another jealous anti US rant.

Been hearing the same nonsense for 50 years.

Stock market up over 50% under Trump.  Hope all your portfolios are doing as well.

He will get reelected so deal with it.

Meditation may help for those that can't handle it.

 

As far as where are we going?

Not sure about some of you, but I am going to meet a sexy 22 year old.

Have a prosperous day and remember whether you believe it or not, you, your family, your country, our world is all about the money.  Unless of course one has no motivation to improve their lives. ( lots of laziness out there)

Anyone who does not believe it, needs to push up from that rock.

7 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

Judith Curry is a skeptic. Cult members arent interested in science. They prefer CNN and the Guardian. Pretend Journos peddling left wing nonsense so the UN can control people more - Marxist agenda.

Judith Curry is indeed a skeptic, as all true scientists should be, but her position is a bit more nuanced. She also runs a company that provides risk assessment to Corporations regarding climate.

 

Her position, I will try to capture it, is that the climate is changing (but the amount of change is unknown, the reason is potentially linked to man made Co2 but likely has many other natural drivers of the change, and also feedback loops could be at play (long or short cycles), there are also upsides to climate change, and attempts to slow economic development, or rapidly end fossil fuels development could result in significant detrimental results to the worlds poor exacerbating greatly poverty, rather then having an opposite effect.

 

She concurs that most climate reporting is hysteria  even going far beyond the already questionable statements coming from the IPCC. I think I summed her up fairly well. And I suppose you already know if you are familiar with her website judithcurry.com others aren't.

1 minute ago, WalkingOrders said:

Judith Curry is indeed a skeptic, as all true scientists should be, but her position is a bit more nuanced. She also runs a company that provides risk assessment to Corporations regarding climate.

When wealthy and influential people stop buying beachfront property, I'll start worrying.

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I've had more than you, spread around the world, that's about the best anyone can do to increase their kids survival rates. Don't put all your offspring in one geographical or genetic basket.

Just hope the don't grow up like their dad  !, and I am sure you are supporting

them all,financially,morally and with love,or have you already forgotten half of

them.?

regards Worgeordie

 

The IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR) made forecasts or projections of future concentrations of carbon dioxide that turned out to be too high.

 

From 1990 to 2018, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations was about 25% higher in FAR’s Business-as-usual forecast than in reality.

 

IPCC are bad guessers.

 

Lucky they dont do the weather each night.

15 minutes ago, Dcheech said:

You of course know that she gets a lot of funding from conservative organizations, do you not?

 

Hey Judy get on the gravy train!!

You obviously do not, and have not, ever read Judith Curry. Your attack on her is simply sad, and detracts from the discussion. 

6 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Judith Curry is indeed a skeptic, as all true scientists should be, but her position is a bit more nuanced. She also runs a company that provides risk assessment to Corporations regarding climate.

 

Her position, I will try to capture it, is that the climate is changing (but the amount of change is unknown, the reason is potentially linked to man made Co2 but likely has many other natural drivers of the change, and also feedback loops could be at play (long or short cycles), there are also upsides to climate change, and attempts to slow economic development, or rapidly end fossil fuels development could result in significant detrimental results to the worlds poor exacerbating greatly poverty, rather then having an opposite effect.

 

She concurs that most climate reporting is hysteria  even going far beyond the already questionable statements coming from the IPCC. I think I summed her up fairly well. And I suppose you already know if you are familiar with her website judithcurry.com others aren't.

She was a believer 15 years ago. After much reading she became a skeptic. Same as myself. The more you read the more flimsy the co2 theory is. Yet many just belief it without question. What about the fires or floods they say? Their understanding of science comes from the mainstream media scaring them. It's sad.

23 minutes ago, Dcheech said:

You of course know that she gets a lot of funding from conservative organizations, do you not?

 

Hey Judy get on the gravy train!!

Lefties on the con arent going to fund her are they?

 

You want Gore to fund her 555555555

 

Read the science champ. Educate yourself.

But I commend the original poster for stirring so much discussion, in so short time.

23 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

Just hope the don't grow up like their dad  !, and I am sure you are supporting

them all,financially,morally and with love,or have you already forgotten half of

them.?

regards Worgeordie

Welfare for single moms was a great invention.

I can have as many kids as possible, and never have to worry about supporting them in any way.

In Asia, old white guys provide the welfare, and will raise them for me.

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Welfare for single moms was a great invention.

I can have as many kids as possible, and never have to worry about supporting them in any way.

In Thailand, old white guys provide the welfare, and will raise them for me.

You must be very proud of yourself    ???? 

regards worgeordie

24 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

I can remember when some scientists said smoking

did not damage your health.

 

So you are saying everything is OK in the World

nothing is a problem,nothing at all to worry about,

all these dire reports are FAKE news,(heard that before) from someone !

regards Worgeordie

 

Differing views on the amount, rate of change, and causes of climate change by scientists is what science is about. Forcing a particular theory based primarily on computer modelings that are highly suspect now due to politically motivation is not science. That is forcing s system of belief in a matter resembling an ideology or religion. 

 

There should be healthy debate in science. For example if the climate is changing should vast amounts of money be thrown into mitigation attempts even if their are significant unknowns as to the obtaining of results? Especially, as feedback mechanisms, and other causality of warming is far from being understood?

 

The "Climate change" terminology is now being used to foster an industry, and money is being poured into Universities that protect that industry, and denied to those that do not.

 

We have a political front runner for President of the United States claiming he will nationalize, and dismantle the fossil fuels industry in the USA, despite putting potentially a million out of work, and no viable fuels on the market. All in the name of reducing climate change. The result would be a global depression, and potentially famine. It's scary stuff. And direct to your point no scientist - not one - is saying everything is OK, or not OK.

4 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Differing views on the amount, rate of change, and causes of climate change by scientists is what science is about. Forcing a particular theory based primarily on computer modelings that are highly suspect now due to politically motivation is not science. That is forcing s system of belief in a matter resembling an ideology or religion. 

 

There should be healthy debate in science. For example if the climate is changing should vast amounts of money be thrown into mitigation attempts even if their are significant unknowns as to the obtaining of results? Especially, as feedback mechanisms, and other causality of warming is far from being understood?

 

The "Climate change" terminology is now being used to foster an industry, and money is being poured into Universities that protect that industry, and denied to those that do not.

 

We have a political front runner for President of the United States claiming he will nationalize, and dismantle the fossil fuels industry in the USA, despite putting potentially a million out of work, and no viable fuels on the market. All in the name of reducing climate change. The result would be a global depression, and potentially famine. It's scary stuff. And direct to your point no scientist - not one - is saying everything is OK, or not OK.

It not just about global warming.

regards Worgeordie

1 hour ago, geronimo said:

came from my head Sir!

And very worthy  content !

2 hours ago, geronimo said:

Hawking said that mankind is in a race to be able to get off this planet before we destroy it

enjoy the day, go for a swim... 

 

die soon sure...

9 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

It not just about global warming.

regards Worgeordie

That's right, I don't think anyone is saying it is, but its now being used as an excuse for policy making across a broad range of issues.

Would not worry about the technology side - we'll either be borg or dead from flu !

18 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

It not just about global warming.

regards Worgeordie

Dodgy scientists told us butter and salt was bad?

 

Good ones didnt.

 

Dodgy scientists tell us co2 is ruining the planet.

 

Good ones don't.

 

Educate yourself. Stop being a lefty sheep.

 

Regards

 

Sensible person

28 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

So you are saying everything is OK in the World

nothing is a problem,nothing at all to worry about,

Wrong. Nobody is saying that. Plastic in the ocean needs fixing. Diets need fixing. News outlets need reform. Abuse of elderly needs to stop. Etc

 

There's a 1000 issues.

 

You climate loons are selling snake oil.

Interesting discussion, but in my view the answer is simple - we (homo sapiens) are without doubt, going to be extinct at some time, it may be soon or it may be another 1 or 2 million years, the same as our predecessors homo erectus, who we saw off the planet after 1.6 million years. No species escapes eventual extinction in my view, especially with us around.

 

For me there are 2 questions 1) is climate change real and 2) are we causing it?

 

1

Yes it’s real, like it’s not the first time in the history of the planet the climate has changed. Ice ages, large errant comets smashing into it and a repeating cycle of cataclysmic events. It could be we are seeng a preview of what’s to come with the weather getting more extreme every year, more hurricanes, more earthquakes, more volcanic eruptions etc.

 

2

Are we causing it? Well it’s obvious we are not helping it but I feel its another example of how self important we feel as a species to suggest we are 100% responsible.

We stand alone with our obvious advanced intelligence over every other species, but having said that, we are not ‘special’. Even if we make it without hitting the fast forward button and obliterating ourselves, another 1 or 2 million years is still just a mere blip in the cosmos.

 

When you couple what’s happening today with the unprecedented global greed of the developed nations and the amount of lies flying around to support a chosen greed, there is no easy answer.

 

2 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

Dodgy scientists told us butter and salt was bad?

 

Good ones didnt.

 

Dodgy scientists tell us co2 is ruining the planet.

 

Good ones don't.

 

Educate yourself. Stop being a lefty sheep.

 

Regards

 

Sensible person

Sensible person, you have a PhD in what, you are just like me

take in the facts,Global warming is just one factor,then make a decision,

on what you think is happening to the World, yours is a different view

to me, but one of us is going to be right,and I just hope it's you.

regards Worgeordie