Donald J Trump sees Climate change as a Chinese hoax

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

I don't think it is possible to have a rational debate on here.

 

The flat Earth, creationists will not be swayed by facts

 

I have demonstrated in earlier posts that there is s direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature

 

I have demonstrated that there are indeed historical cycles with about a 100,000 year period.

 

I have demonstrated that current CO2 levels are off scale

 

This IS due to several human activities.

 

There are several ways forward and all these could fuel a manufacturing boom

 

Investing in renewables such as PV cells, direct solar, tidal, wind power, hydro electric

 

Use nuclear for base load

 

Improve insulation

 

Use more efficient machines such as heat pumps, LEDs, inverter control.

 

Stop deforestation

 

Plant more forests

 

Develop and install carbon sequestration

 

Invest in smart grids

 

Develop long range, low loss transmission lines to transfer electrical power from equatorial areas to the temperate zones

 

BUT the fools don't understand this stuff.

 

Electric cars are the way to go!

 

Burning coal is so passé ?

Absolutely there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. The argument is whether temperature causes increased CO2 or CO2 causes rising temperatures.

 

People are not prepared do what is necessary. After the tsunami, the Japanese converted to oil fired electricity production instead of solving the problem and using nuclear again.

Millions of acres of rainforest are cut down in Indonesia so oil palm can be grown. The carbon carrying capacity of oil palm is obviously far less than large trees.

The real question is, are people too foolish to survive?

 

Electric cars- no, hydrogen fuel cell is the way to go. If electricity is made by burning oil, it makes the same amount of pollution as burning oil in the car.

[MajarTheLion]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

I don't think it is possible to have a rational debate on here.

 

The flat Earth, creationists will not be swayed by facts

 

I have demonstrated in earlier posts that there is s direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature

 

I have demonstrated that there are indeed historical cycles with about a 100,000 year period.

 

I have demonstrated that current CO2 levels are off scale

 

This IS due to several human activities.

 

There are several ways forward and all these could fuel a manufacturing boom

 

Investing in renewables such as PV cells, direct solar, tidal, wind power, hydro electric

 

Use nuclear for base load

 

Improve insulation

 

Use more efficient machines such as heat pumps, LEDs, inverter control.

 

Stop deforestation

 

Plant more forests

 

Develop and install carbon sequestration

 

Invest in smart grids

 

Develop long range, low loss transmission lines to transfer electrical power from equatorial areas to the temperate zones

 

BUT the fools don't understand this stuff.

 

Electric cars are the way to go!

 

Burning coal is so passé ?

 

Oh wonderful, you're looking for debate! So let's talk facts. Below is a temperature chart for the past 800,000+ years. It clearly indicates Earth has gotten hotter than it is now and cooled off without Barack Obama, the UN, corporate welfare and other silliness proposed to "fix" global warming. Tell me why I should be worried when clearly the planet's temperature overall moves in what appears to be random cycles.

 

And how is rational debate to take place with people who alter data to further their cause? That does not sound rational to me. It sounds dishonest.

Edited November 24, 2016 by MajarTheLion

[jcsmith]

@MajarTheLion: Noone is saying at all that the earth doesn't go through natural heating and warming cycles. That certainly happens. The warming we are seeing now is not part of that natural cycle though. The CO2 levels right now are far above where they have been at any time in at least 800,000 years. And if you look at the record it is so obvious that this is caused by the industrial revolution. 

 

 

That is undeniably man made. This will raise the temperature, acidify the ocean, and as a byproduct cause glacial melting which will in turn cause a sea level rise.

Edited November 24, 2016 by jcsmith

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually, I don't have a problem saying that there is a problem. I just maintain that no one can solve it.

What the politicians are doing is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic as it sinks.

Stop burning hydrocarbons like coal

 

Stop deforestation

 

Invest in carbon sequestration

 

Basta!

[Si Thea01]

3 hours ago, jcsmith said:

@MajarTheLion: Noone is saying at all that the earth doesn't go through natural heating and warming cycles. That certainly happens. The warming we are seeing now is not part of that natural cycle though. The CO2 levels right now are far above where they have been at any time in at least 800,000 years. And if you look at the record it is so obvious that this is caused by the industrial revolution. 

 

 

That is undeniably man made. This will raise the temperature, acidify the ocean, and as a byproduct cause glacial melting which will in turn cause a sea level rise.

 

 

Here's an experiment anyone can carry out. Put some ice cubes in glass and then fill it with water.  Then, when the ice melts, see what happens, absolutely nothing.  So, given that the ice melting at the poles is a natural phenomenon and is replaced and has been occurring forever, as does the sinking and rising of the land, and the sea levels haven't risen, then how will it happen now and when?  Why is it so?  

[Si Thea01]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

I don't think it is possible to have a rational debate on here.

 

The flat Earth, creationists will not be swayed by facts

 

I have demonstrated in earlier posts that there is s direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature

 

I have demonstrated that there are indeed historical cycles with about a 100,000 year period.

 

I have demonstrated that current CO2 levels are off scale

 

This IS due to several human activities.

 

There are several ways forward and all these could fuel a manufacturing boom

 

Investing in renewables such as PV cells, direct solar, tidal, wind power, hydro electric

 

Use nuclear for base load

 

Improve insulation

 

Use more efficient machines such as heat pumps, LEDs, inverter control.

 

Stop deforestation

 

Plant more forests

 

Develop and install carbon sequestration

 

Invest in smart grids

 

Develop long range, low loss transmission lines to transfer electrical power from equatorial areas to the temperate zones

 

BUT the fools don't understand this stuff.

 

Electric cars are the way to go!

 

Burning coal is so passé ?

 

Many of the aspects but not all that you have listed I, a sceptic, (none-believer) agree with but I will never accept falsified facts, especially when those, not yourself, unless you're on the gravy train,  present them as a lie after lie, which has been proved time and time again.  The GW industry is worth billions, with many of the elites making so much money, through their scaremongering, that they continue to do so because of their greed, not because of what they allege.

 

Has nothing to do with CO2 and the natural warming of the earth.  How much CO2 do these doomsday claimers want to eradicate?  If they didn't want to contribute then they wouldn't drive, fly, use electricity or lead the lifestyle they do.  It's not do as we do, it's do as we say.  My two words to them, get stuffed and will be until they do what they expect others to do.  Sorry for the language.  It is also a strange thing this GW or CC, it causes people from one side to denigrate others because they dare to have differing opinions, which they cannot accept, and this and that they are always right.

 

AL Gore, Zoros,  Flannery, the many, many scientists, all of whom put down what governments want to hear, are all profiteering at the ordinary citizen's expense. Obama is also in on the scaremongering and what has he done in the 8 years he has been pushing the scary stories.  Has the world ended as some have predicted.  Of course not and can the alarmists tell us how all this CC and GW affected their lives, other than having to pay increased costs. I'd rather have the lifestyle that I have today than what it was like 50 years ago.

 

Coal fired power stations are cleaner than they have ever been and yes, they too are subsidised, but not to the extent of solar and wind power, hence the now horrendous electricity costs.  Why is it that many people are happy to see electricity costs go through the roof, forcing the poorer people to suffer and being unable to pay their accounts now elect not to use electricity for heating and freeze in winter and suffer the heat in summer?  In so far as putting up graphs showing this and that, I really couldn't be bothered, it's all been done before.

 

Why are those promoting GW or CC, they cannot even make up their mind which name to call it, making so much money out of it and wanting the ordinary person going back to living like they did in medieval times. I am sick and tired of being told how to live my life and those who want to do it can go and jump. They never practise what they preach, they are hypocrites and until they do what they expect us to do, then I'm sorry, I do not now and never will believe any of their hype because that's all it is.  It's funny how the high priest, Gore, goes around the world preaching his new religion, yet goes against everything he preaches and never ever responds to any questions put to him.  I wonder why?    

Edited November 24, 2016 by Si Thea01

[jcsmith]

7 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Here's an experiment anyone can carry out. Put some ice cubes in glass and then fill it with water.  Then, when the ice melts, see what happens, absolutely nothing.  So, given that the ice melting at the poles is a natural phenomenon and is replaced and has been occurring forever, as does the sinking and rising of the land, and the sea levels haven't risen, then how will it happen now and when?  Why is it so?  

If the ice caps and ice on Greenland melted we'd be looking at a 70 meter (230 foot) rise in global sea levels, not exactly an ice cube in a bathtub. That probably won't happen and certainly not any time soon. But what is likely to happen is that the Arctic and Greenland ice does melts, and if that happens we are looking at anywhere between 4-6 meter (13-20 foot) rise of sea levels. That would wreak havoc on many coastal cities. In terms of the U.S. we're talking about New Orleans, Miami, New York (not New York city but the coastal areas),  and the bay area seeing large parts of them being submerged. I think anyone who has been to the beaches here in Thailand realizes what it would do to many of them.

Edited November 25, 2016 by jcsmith

[Si Thea01]

14 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

If the ice caps and ice on Greenland melted we'd be looking at a 70 meter (230 foot) rise in global sea levels, not exactly an ice cube in a bathtub. That probably won't happen and certainly not any time soon. But what is likely to happen is that the Arctic and Greenland ice does melts, and if that happens we are looking at anywhere between 4-6 meter (13-20 foot) rise of sea levels. That would wreak havoc on many coastal cities. In terms of the U.S. we're talking about New Orleans, Miami, New York (not New York city but the coastal areas),  and the bay area seeing large parts of them being submerged. I think anyone who has been to the beaches here in Thailand realizes what it would do to many of them.

 

Come on JC, do you really believe that?   Can you then explain why all the high priests of the GW propaganda had bought mansions on the coastal fringe of many countries?   Why is it always if, why not when? Has any history recorded any such doomsday events that you are suggesting?  I cannot recall reading any but I can always stand to be corrected.  So if you truly believe it, maybe one should rush off and buy a residence high in the mountains, just in case.

 

Now that you have brought these alleged horrific rises into the equation, when may we expect this to happen, 10, 20, 50, 100 years+ into the future? Really JC, what you are stating is pure scaremongering and cannot be proved by the modelling that the GW alarmists want to use to put it out there.

 

Why is it that real scientists, those who use science to determine what occurs on our planet in relation to weather and climate, have confirmed and have been peered reviewed, when they indicate that the ice caps and the ice sheets of Greenland, have over the millenniums, receded, returned and receded again, all when carbon dioxide was higher in the atmosphere, well before the industrial revolution, yet nothing significantly occurred with sea level rises, in particular, to the degree you suggest.  I am sorry but I cannot accept what you allege and I will just have to agree to disagree with the scenarios you have put forward.    

 

  

[maewang99]

not true at all.  he doesn't see it that way... it was something he ****said****. 

it's not what he thinks, take it from me.... not just a New Yorker.

by the way, just in case one of the dingalings reads this far.... the lag between emissions and effect is at least 10 years, maybe as much as 40...... years.  it's chemistry and physics.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by maewang99

[onthesoi]

7 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

.Now that you have brought these alleged horrific rises into the equation, when may we expect this to happen, 10, 20, 50, 100 years+ into the future? 

 

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=sea+level+forecast+map

[Humberstone]

8 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Here's an experiment anyone can carry out. Put some ice cubes in glass and then fill it with water.  Then, when the ice melts, see what happens, absolutely nothing.  So, given that the ice melting at the poles is a natural phenomenon and is replaced and has been occurring forever, as does the sinking and rising of the land, and the sea levels haven't risen, then how will it happen now and when?  Why is it so?  

 

No, that's incorrect. The ice in Antarctica is not floating on water, it sits on rock. Also, glaciers store more water than floating ice and they also sit on land. If Antarctic and glacial ice melt then sea levels will rise.

[onthesoi]

8 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

Here's an experiment anyone can carry out. Put some ice cubes in glass and then fill it with water.  Then, when the ice melts, see what happens, absolutely nothing.  

 

Not all the ice at the poles is free floating in water as much of the ice is on land or above water... so your experiment is deeply flawed, the only thing it proves is your lack of understanding of the science, it's typical of the denialist fake science propaganda. 

Edited November 25, 2016 by onthesoi
HS beat me to it.

[jcsmith]

@Si Thea01: People have money they like good views. It's why people a large percentage of the worlds populations live in coastal areas. I mean let's take us as an example. Of Thailand I prefer Phuket because the beaches of the nice beaches. By the time Phuket sees serious issues from this, I'm probably not going to be around. So buying a home there won't really affect me. It's our children and grandchildren that will bear the brunt of us ignoring the signs of nature.

As for timelines, it's impossible to pinpoint exactly. It was estimated that at 400ppm Greenland could lose between as much as 40% of its ice level it could result in a 3 meter sea level rise in the next 400 years just from Greenland. Here's the problem though, we're already at that. And the CO2 levels have risen by 90 ppm since 1950 and as you can see from the image above it is not slowing down, it's speeding up at astronomical rates, and is directly as a result of man. And here's the thing, the higher it gets the faster it melts, it's not like another 100ppm is going to accelerate this by 20%, it will be by a greater number. The worse it gets the faster it will accelerate. It will likely melt fully, it's just a matter of when. And that will be decided by how mankind responds to the issue. That's not scaremongering, it's trying to reach people to make them understand the seriousness of what we are doing to the environment.

[RickBradford]

If Donald Trump really did say that that climate change is a Chinese hoax, that is very interesting, since it is only a few years since the Chinese were saying it was a Western hoax.

 

Quote

 

The Developed Countries [EU,USA+etc.] are attempting to use the Greenhouse Effect to lock up the development of the Developing world with Morality Manacles. 

As a result of this incessant propaganda and speculation, the unlucky “carbon” has suddenly turned into a most heinous, sinister ghoul.

 

Behind the back of the demonizing of “carbon”, we must recognize that it is the sinister intention of the Developed Countries to attempt to use “carbon” to block the living space of the Developing Countries. Behind “the Carbon Plot” is national interest, it is the bitter struggle for the right to existence for every country."  - Low Carbon Plot", Gou Hongyang, Shanxi Economics Publishing House, 2010.

 

Either way, the way that climate change is so easily batted around as a political tool doesn't say much for the solidity of the science of climate change.

 

[Si Thea01]

Just now, onthesoi said:

 

Not all the ice at the poles is free floating in water as much of the ice is on land.... so your experiment is flawed, the only thing it proves is your lack of understanding of the science, it's typical of the denialist propaganda. 

 

And the qualifications following your name are? But then your response is typical  of the alarmist myth.  I was taught that icebergs, glaciers, and ice shelves float in the ocean but originate on land.  Says a lot for your theory. 

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, jcsmith said:

@Si Thea01: People have money they like good views. It's why people a large percentage of the worlds populations live in coastal areas. I mean let's take us as an example. Of Thailand I prefer Phuket because the beaches of the nice beaches. By the time Phuket sees serious issues from this, I'm probably not going to be around. So buying a home there won't really affect me. It's our children and grandchildren that will bear the brunt of us ignoring the signs of nature.

As for timelines, it's impossible to pinpoint exactly. It was estimated that at 400ppm Greenland could lose between as much as 40% of its ice level it could result in a 3 meter sea level rise in the next 400 years just from Greenland. Here's the problem though, we're already at that. And the CO2 levels have risen by 90 ppm since 1950 and as you can see from the image above it is not slowing down, it's speeding up at astronomical rates, and is directly as a result of man. And here's the thing, the higher it gets the faster it melts, it's not like another 100ppm is going to accelerate this by 20%, it will be by a greater number. The worse it gets the faster it will accelerate. It will likely melt fully, it's just a matter of when. And that will be decided by how mankind responds to the issue. That's not scaremongering, it's trying to reach people to make them understand the seriousness of what we are doing to the environment.

 

JC, I was referring to you alarming statistics on how much sea level is going to rise but now you have reduced that to only 3 metres.  That's a huge reduction to what you initially claimed.   I thought it so horrendous that I was thinking of going out and buying a house in the mountains, at least 700 metres above sea level. But given it hasn't risen much in the past 100 years, between 0.8mm to 203.3 mm, you would hardly call that  a devastation of the land, so I've put off that idea.

 

Now, according to you, it has jumped past the year 2100 when we can expect the sea to swallow the land to about the 2500 and only could result, not will.  And to be sure, to be sure, neither of us will be around then and given all the ill predictions arising from the USA Elections, none of may be here if we accept some soothsayers and their allegations of poor old Donald hitting the button.  I think we on the non-believers' side accept that there is pollution and things that need to be corrected that man has carried out, very foolishly, however, it ain't CO2 that's the problem despite all the facts and figures you want to quote.

[ClutchClark]

The problem is over-population.

CC is merely a symptom.

 

from BBC News:

 

"The World Bank says we'll need to produce 50% more food by 2050 if the global population continues to rise at its current pace. "

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38089984

 

Now please tell me what affect this will have on CC?

 

Too many people breeding.

[jcsmith]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

JC, I was referring to you alarming statistics on how much sea level is going to rise but now you have reduced that to only 3 metres.  That's a huge reduction to what you initially claimed.   I thought it so horrendous that I was thinking of going out and buying a house in the mountains, at least 700 metres above sea level. But given it hasn't risen much in the past 100 years, between 0.8mm to 203.3 mm, you would hardly call that  a devastation of the land, so I've put off that idea.

 

Now, according to you, it has jumped past the year 2100 when we can expect the sea to swallow the land to about the 2500 and only could result, not will.  And to be sure, to be sure, neither of us will be around then and given all the ill predictions arising from the USA Elections, none of may be here if we accept some soothsayers and their allegations of poor old Donald hitting the button.  I think we on the non-believers' side accept that there is pollution and things that need to be corrected that man has carried out, very foolishly, however, it ain't CO2 that's the problem despite all the facts and figures you want to quote.

 

That's a misrpresentation of what was said. If all of the ice melted worldwide we'd be looking at 70 meter rises. If the Greenland ice melted on its own its probably (different projections from different people) no more than 7 meters globally, though a 7 meter rise will as I said wreak havoc on coastal areas. As mentioned before New Orleans would be in trouble with just a 3 meter rise, at 7 meters much of southern florida, much of the bay area is flooded. 

 

With regards to the rise in the past hundred years, it should be noted the rate at which it is rising has doubled in the past decade. And this is a trend you can expect to continue. Ice deflects sunlight, but as it melts more of that light will hit the surface which will increase surface temperature, which in turn will cause the ice to melt at a faster rate.  So the longer we take to respond to this, the quicker it will happen. And the rate at which it speeds up will rapidly accelerate the further it goes. But again this isn't just about warming, there are so many other things which the rise in CO2 affects and they all factor into a dangerous situation. 

 

@ClutchClark: Population growth also is certainly a problem. More people = the need for more food and the need for more power. If we produce more power plants using non-clean energy sources we accelerate the effects of climate change. Climate change in turn will affect food production. Altogether you have a very volatile mix.

Edited November 25, 2016 by jcsmith

[Si Thea01]

3 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

4 hours ago, jcsmith said:

If the ice caps and ice on Greenland melted we'd be looking at a 70 meter (230 foot) rise in global sea levels, not exactly an ice cube in a bathtub. That probably won't happen and certainly not any time soon. But what is likely to happen is that the Arctic and Greenland ice does melts, and if that happens we are looking at anywhere between 4-6 meter (13-20 foot) rise of sea levels. That would wreak havoc on many coastal cities. In terms of the U.S. we're talking about New Orleans, Miami, New York (not New York city but the coastal areas),  and the bay area seeing large parts of them being submerged. I think anyone who has been to the beaches here in Thailand realizes what it would do to many of them.

 

 

JC, that is not what you said, I am not misrepresenting you, it is clearly stated in the first four and a bit lines of your post some 4 hours ago. You said 70 metres and referred specifically to Greenland, however you did quantify this by saying it probably won't happen. I'd bet my sweet nelly that it won't. I do not make it a habit of twisting things around or reading something into a aspect that does not exist. You then go on to incorporate the Artic and Greenland together and then reduce the sea level rise to between 4-6 metres.

 

Now in the current post you're saying if all the ice, world wide, melted, than it would equate to the 70 metres but in the case of only Greenland, it would rise only about 7 metres.  A big difference  JC, we can't have it all ways. 

 

I don't know why you brought Clutch in on our debate.  He has his own views, some I agree with, like yours and some I don't but I have not felt any need to discuss this particular matter with him, just yourself and a few others so what is the purpose of this introduction.  Again, it is my opinion that there is nothing dangerous about CO2 but you have your beliefs so be it, and obviously nothing I will say will change that.

[jcsmith]

@Si Thea01: Ah okay I see the confusion. I worded that line pretty poorly looking at the quote. The 70 meter number is if the ice melted globally. And as I mentioned there that was not going to happen any time soon. The arctic and Greenland ice is likely to melt though. So those were two separate statements but it was worded poorly and looks like I'm referring to that number from Greenland alone. That was not the intention though.

 

4-6 meter rises is what we will likely be facing. It could be much worse than that though. Greenland alone could contribute more than 7 meters if it completely melts.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, jcsmith said:

@Si Thea01: Ah okay I see the confusion. I worded that line pretty poorly looking at the quote. The 70 meter number is if the ice melted globally. And as I mentioned there that was not going to happen any time soon. The arctic and Greenland ice is likely to melt though. So those were two separate statements but it was worded poorly and looks like I'm referring to that number from Greenland alone. That was not the intention though.

 

4-6 meter rises is what we will likely be facing. It could be much worse than that though. Greenland alone could contribute more than 7 meters if it completely melts.

 

OK JC, I just didn't want you to think I was quoting you incorrectly.  I'll accept that you could have word it better so that now at least there is no misunderstanding.  However, given we are going around in circles, you one way, me the other, I think it might be advantageous to call it quits whilst the going's good.  Enjoy the GW, I'd rather it be hot than freezing over, which apparently we are over due for.  Just hope it's not in my lifetime. Have a good one.

 

[MJP]

3 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

The problem is over-population.

CC is merely a symptom.

 

from BBC News:

 

"The World Bank says we'll need to produce 50% more food by 2050 if the global population continues to rise at its current pace. "

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38089984

 

Now please tell me what affect this will have on CC?

 

Too many people breeding.

 

Take a look at global birth rates.

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, jcsmith said:

If the ice caps and ice on Greenland melted we'd be looking at a 70 meter (230 foot) rise in global sea levels, not exactly an ice cube in a bathtub. That probably won't happen and certainly not any time soon. But what is likely to happen is that the Arctic and Greenland ice does melts, and if that happens we are looking at anywhere between 4-6 meter (13-20 foot) rise of sea levels. That would wreak havoc on many coastal cities. In terms of the U.S. we're talking about New Orleans, Miami, New York (not New York city but the coastal areas),  and the bay area seeing large parts of them being submerged. I think anyone who has been to the beaches here in Thailand realizes what it would do to many of them.

That's ice cap ( Antarctica ), singular. If the arctic melts no sea level rise happens. Yes, if the Greenland ice melts we are in trouble.

 

Pity they won't stop cutting down all the trees, isn't it?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

The problem is over-population.

CC is merely a symptom.

 

from BBC News:

 

"The World Bank says we'll need to produce 50% more food by 2050 if the global population continues to rise at its current pace. "

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38089984

 

Now please tell me what affect this will have on CC?

 

Too many people breeding.

There is no problem feeding an unlimited number of people. Zillions of square miles of arable land are given over to such frivolities as rain forest and wild animal reserves in Africa.

The real question is if we want to live in a world where every other animal has been exterminated and smog covers the planet.

Let them eat seaweed I say .

[thaibeachlovers]

43 minutes ago, MJP said:

 

Take a look at global birth rates.

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?

We are overpopulated already. We need to reduce to about half of present population to achieve change. Birth rate is still too high to achieve that reduction.

[ClutchClark]

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

We are overpopulated already. We need to reduce to about half of present population to achieve change. Birth rate is still too high to achieve that reduction.

 

Perhaps those most concerned about CC could lead the way.  

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, MJP said:

 

Take a look at global birth rates.

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?

 

Well designed website.

 

Quick access to different data comparisons.

 

Thanks

 

But my opinion is a large die-off would be necessary to reverse CC.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, MJP said:

 

Take a look at global birth rates.

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?

A few things this doesn't take into account. For one, the Chinese have recently abolished their one-child rule for most of the population. That rule must have greatly depressed population growth.

For another, it's not really population growth alone that's the threat, but consumption. If all 7 billion humans currently alive were consuming as much, say, as an average Afghani, the environment would be in much better shape. But if they were consuming as much as an average American, the current situation would be a lot worse. Unfortunately for the environment, Chinese consumption is increasing dramatically. In India that's also the case as it is in much of the developing world.

[MajarTheLion]

2 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Perhaps those most concerned about CC could lead the way.  

 

BINGO! There's the crux of it to me. The people demanding we peasants change our lifestyles typically fly around on private jets and ride around on luxury yachts. When we look at this, combined with other things like the bullying, coercion, manipulation of data and other dishonest tactics these political activists engage in, it's difficult to take them seriously.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

A few things this doesn't take into account. For one, the Chinese have recently abolished their one-child rule for most of the population. That rule must have greatly depressed population growth.

For another, it's not really population growth alone that's the threat, but consumption. If all 7 billion humans currently alive were consuming as much, say, as an average Afghani, the environment would be in much better shape. But if they were consuming as much as an average American, the current situation would be a lot worse. Unfortunately for the environment, Chinese consumption is increasing dramatically. In India that's also the case as it is in much of the developing world.

True. Which is why I have said all along that till Obama stops flying around the world on a big plane and taking hundreds of people with him people won't take much notice of his message. The only way this works if it is led by example from those that say we must change or die.

Al Gore arriving on a private plane to tell us there is too much pollution makes a mockery of his cause ( unless he knows it is just BS and just wants to make money off of it ).

 

BTW, I was puzzled about the Chinese solution when I realised their population was still increasing, but the answer is simple, it takes at least 2 generations to have an effect, and probably 3 or 4 to make a real difference. The policy just hasn't had long enough to work yet.

Hopefully conditions there have changed enough that their birth rate remains low anyway. The real problem is in countries where many are still dirt poor and uneducated. Those are the people that have most children.