|
Post by jonjel on Oct 12, 2018 16:55:44 GMT 1
OK you clever people. How about putting your brain power into perhaps mitigating global warming, other than killing every other person on the plant.
Politicians don't seem to be able to do anything other than wring their hands and say 'its terrible'
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 13, 2018 10:20:12 GMT 1
Purported "Global" warming over the entire period since before the Industrial Revolution i.e about 200 years, is supposed to be about 0.6ºC. It amounts to the difference in temperature between the sea level and the top of the cliffs at Beachy Head. Let that sink in before the thread descends into apocalyptic scare mongering.
The cause of his warming is disputed and don't let anyone persuade you otherwise. Just because the BBC has jumped on the scare-mongering bandwagon and is refusing to allow allow sceptics a say on air does not mean it is warranted.
And, no, there is nothing we can do about it except adapt, as we always have done. The world is wealthy enough to adapt as the steadily falling global death rate from natural disasters demonstrates.
Prevention is a fool's errand except when it involves engineering sea level protection, warning systems, safe refuges and the like.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 13, 2018 10:31:29 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Oct 13, 2018 19:10:29 GMT 1
If you want to argue that the earth has warmed and cooled over time in the past I would totally agree. If people could not grow crops they simply moved away, but over a fair time scale. However I think it is the speed at which it is happening which is maybe galvanising the thinking a bit.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 13, 2018 22:35:54 GMT 1
There is no untoward "speed" involved. There has been no rate of increase in hurricanes or tornadoes or sea level rise or rainfall or droughts or global ice. There is only a well-orchestrated campaign of hype, spin and scare-mongering which is basically of anti-capitalist motivation into which certain elites (especially Western Media types) hurl themselves with enthusiasm - especially the BBC, where NONE of the "environment" editors or reporters have any scientific education whatsoever so are totally incapable of challenging the green hogwash which is daily laid before them. The result is that the innocent/ignorant public interpret the truly VAST increase in media coverage of climate and extreme weather as a proxy for change in the climate itself.
As for the weather affecting agriculture. Of course it does. But instead of just moving away when conditions worsen today we can genetically modify our crops so that yield goes on increasing whatever the weather/climate does. World food production is increasing massively over time and hardly anyone starves today despite increasing population. And yet…. the green scare-mongers would have you believe everything is getting worse and we should all give up eating meat! What misanthropes the Greens are.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 17:44:14 GMT 1
There is no untoward "speed" involved. There has been no rate of increase in hurricanes or tornadoes or sea level rise or rainfall or droughts or global ice. There is only a well-orchestrated campaign of hype, spin and scare-mongering which is basically of anti-capitalist motivation into which certain elites (especially Western Media types) hurl themselves with enthusiasm - especially the BBC, where NONE of the "environment" editors or reporters have any scientific education whatsoever so are totally incapable of challenging the green hogwash which is daily laid before them. The result is that the innocent/ignorant public interpret the truly VAST increase in media coverage of climate and extreme weather as a proxy for change in the climate itself. As for the weather affecting agriculture. Of course it does. But instead of just moving away when conditions worsen today we can genetically modify our crops so that yield goes on increasing whatever the weather/climate does. World food production is increasing massively over time and hardly anyone starves today despite increasing population. And yet…. the green scare-mongers would have you believe everything is getting worse and we should all give up eating meat! What misanthropes the Greens are. Good post. You should all give up eating meat though. Unless you go out and farm and kill it yourself - I don't have much objection to that, if that's what you want to be.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 17:47:48 GMT 1
If you want to argue that the earth has warmed and cooled over time in the past I would totally agree. If people could not grow crops they simply moved away, but over a fair time scale. However I think it is the speed at which it is happening which is maybe galvanising the thinking a bit. The speed at which the "global temp" cooled between the 1930s and 1970s was at least as quick - very probably more so. And in those days the records of such a purported quantity was far more reliable - more recording stations (somewhat unbelievable, but true), better positioned, fewer heat sinks.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 16, 2018 17:53:19 GMT 1
Purported "Global" warming over the entire period since before the Industrial Revolution i.e about 200 years, is supposed to be about 0.6ºC. It amounts to the difference in temperature between the sea level and the top of the cliffs at Beachy Head. Let that sink in before the thread descends into apocalyptic scare mongering. The cause of his warming is disputed and don't let anyone persuade you otherwise. Just because the BBC has jumped on the scare-mongering bandwagon and is refusing to allow allow sceptics a say on air does not mean it is warranted. And, no, there is nothing we can do about it except adapt, as we always have done. The world is wealthy enough to adapt as the steadily falling global death rate from natural disasters demonstrates. Prevention is a fool's errand except when it involves engineering sea level protection, warning systems, safe refuges and the like. There are very potent engineering proposals of how to cool the global temperature, however. Very simple solutions, very cheap to implement and run, proven to be effective. It's a provocative question why you never hear about such solutions in the media, or considered by the IPCC. It's the most persuasive and conclusive evidence that this organisation is not really interested in either the supposed problem or any realistic solution to it. Which poses the question: what are they really up to?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 17, 2018 9:39:46 GMT 1
A proposal to cool the temperature depends upon the premise that the temperature NEEDS cooling, Mr Sonde. It was globally warmer than now during the Mediaeval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period. Civilisations thrived during those periods. When it cooled the population of Europe starved and were subject to plagues, wars and migrations and the population fell.
I have yet to find an alarmist who can tell me what the perfect goldilocks temperature for the earth is. I don't think they care so long as they can take a hammer to capitalist industrial civilisation which has raised global standards of life and culture even as the population has risen exponentially.
I eat meat but not a great deal, Mr Sonde. Everything in moderation is my rule re. diet. The scare-mongering over meat husbandry is as ill-founded as the scare-mongering over sea level rise and ice loss. For God's sake, the norm for global climate for the last 2 million years has been glaciation. We are still in one of the brief and blessed interglacial periods when mankind thrives when the deadly glaciation is interrupted for a relatively brief interval. What do they expect the remaining ice to do if not melt?!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 19, 2018 17:36:55 GMT 1
A proposal to cool the temperature depends upon the premise that the temperature NEEDS cooling, Mr Sonde. Agreed. I am for the purposes of argument taking the premise at face value/ Okay, your contention, IPCC and your ilk, is that the world is heading for destruction - billions of people, the vast majority of the world's population displaced and starving to death. Sea level swallowing most of the world's major cities. A mass extinction event unlike any other since the demise of the dinosaurs. And this will inevitably happen, unless we drastically alter the world's source of energy over the next twelve years. That's the message. It's been the same message for at least 25 years already. So, given this vision of Armaggedon, delivered with utmost seriousness we are told by "97% of the world's scientists", who are somehow privy to "settled proofs" which somewhat inexplicably they as trained scientists seem totally incapable of communicating to anyone else who is not part of their elite club of savants, then what are we going to do about it? More schemes to reduce and trade carbon emissions, appears to be the brilliant answer - more Kyotos and Copenhagens and Paris agreements. Which have done wonders to reduce carbon emissions and stop the global temperature rising, as we all know - apart from making this privileged club extremely powerful and cosseted and obscenely rich, of course, but presumably that's a coincidental icing on the cake. You're trying to blind us with facts now. Are you suggesting these people are subverting "Science" for their own political ends? Not as morally elevated as Adolf Hitler, then.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Oct 21, 2018 9:54:34 GMT 1
Climate changes. Always has done. In recent geological history, civilisations have flourished and disappeared as the sun and rain did whatever the laws of physics demanded. Right now, however, we have the potential for Great Britain to survive and thrive until the next ice age by limiting our population to a sustainable level. (Does not apply in NI).
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Oct 22, 2018 16:05:11 GMT 1
Climate changes. Always has done. In recent geological history, civilisations have flourished and disappeared as the sun and rain did whatever the laws of physics demanded. Right now, however, we have the potential for Great Britain to survive and thrive until the next ice age by limiting our population to a sustainable level. (Does not apply in NI). I agree with the sentiment of limiting the population, but how do you suggest we do that? I am getting old now so mandatory euthanasia for the older generation holds very little appeal.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 22, 2018 18:02:57 GMT 1
Really? I thought you were a wholehearted supporter of the NHS? This would appear to be their policy. Or did the prosecution of those responsible for implementing this policy in Gosport (unfortunately for them, they were merely caught doing so - as everyone knows who's in the least interested in how the NHS operates, it is in fact ubiquitous) somehow pass me by?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Oct 24, 2018 8:33:27 GMT 1
Mandatory euthanasia is not a good idea. Having spent a lifetime paying taxes, cultivating a garden, and learning to play the piano, I want to enjoy the fruits of my effort.
Voluntary euthanasia would be the hallmark of a civilised society. You can be prosecuted for cruelly extending the life of any suffering animal except homo sapiens: why do we not extend the same courtesy to ourselves?
But neither would have the required continuing impact on population. My idea is to pay every woman £500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant. The net cost to the exchequer is less than the cost of healthcare, social care, education, policing and child benefits for each child not born, and quite clearly an additional £1000 per year for doing nothing would be attractive to any woman, particularly those who would otherwise need to rely on state education and benefits.
If the effect is to reduce the birthrate to half the replacement rate, the "working fraction" of the population (say between 20 and 60 years old) would increase from 50% to around 60%, so there would be more tax raised per capita to provide pensions (and euthanasia!). The net UK population would decrease over the next 100 years to a sustainable level of about 10,000,000 and every one of our great grandchildren would inherit and have access to about 5 times the capital, land and facilities that they might expect if nothing changes. Most significantly, if you believe that fossil fuels are a bad thing, this reduced population could get all its energy from renewable, carbon-neutral sources, with at least the energy availability per capita that we now enjoy.
This will not happen, because it would depress house prices and reduce the market for goods and services, the only statistics that politicians care about.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 24, 2018 23:08:37 GMT 1
Mandatory euthanasia is not a good idea. Having spent a lifetime paying taxes, cultivating a garden, and learning to play the piano, I want to enjoy the fruits of my effort. Voluntary euthanasia would be the hallmark of a civilised society. You can be prosecuted for cruelly extending the life of any suffering animal except homo sapiens: why do we not extend the same courtesy to ourselves? Because, uniquely, homo sapiens inherits. Not a bad one, that, Alan. I particularly warm to the payment aspect of it, rather than your usual authoritarian diktat. I don't know if your maths work or not - as you say, it won't happen, so why bother working it out. But in principle I follow the rest of your argument. So, why do you not agree that the first rule of any program aimed at the reduction of population, and a more equitable distribution of wealth (I take it we're agreed on these goods) would be to stop importing millions of poor people? That's the last thing you should do, isn't it, if you're really interested in the welfare and economic progress of your own indigenous "poor"?
|
|