Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

I do not believe that to be the case.



The real argument is how much man is exacerbating climate change, it gets brushed under the carpet because the solution is very unpalatable, both from a mankind angle and a global capitalists angle.

To sustain rampant capitalism requires rampant population growth. The Earth's resources getting increasingly raped to provide the resources for the increase in population and increase in capitalism.

This combined is exacerbating climate change.
Meanwhile the climate change mob believe the solution involves more green taxes or adopting Marxist theories rather than fighting to reduce mankinds population levels
 
it is perfectly possible to believe mankind is causing climate change but want to do nothing about it.
Also perfectly possible to believe climate change is cyclic and we entered a warmer period circa 11,000 years ago (when the glaciers covered Scotland in a mile of ice). The question is whether man is helping it along and by how much. Also in the overall grand scheme of things does it make a great deal of difference?
 
I see were back to its all capitalisms fault

Carefully ignoring how socialism has proven just as damaging to the environment for much the same reasons ( incompetence - arrogance - stupidity - greed - failure to understand) - communist and socialist states have exploited their resources as ruthlessly as any capitalist nation and sometimes left a bigger mess - In part because if everyone owns it then nobody owns it and so nobody feels responsible.

Its funny but I know of no pure capitalist state - all so called capitalist states have socialist policies - yet somehow its only the capitalist bit that's bad for the environment.

Why one could even go so far as to argue that if every country is responsible - then perhaps its socialism that's the problem - Awaits the stampy feet from people who quite rightly argue that's bollox - but will then blame the economic model they disagree with

Capitalism is not the problem nor is socialism the solution and vice versa -
Man is both problem and solution - the economic model is irrelevant both have serious flaws that some people do not wish to accept that says more about them than it does about the other system
 
Also perfectly possible to believe climate change is cyclic and we entered a warmer period circa 11,000 years ago (when the glaciers covered Scotland in a mile of ice). The question is whether man is helping it along and by how much. Also in the overall grand scheme of things does it make a great deal of difference?
That was my position** for a long time - does it matter if it takes 9999 years instead of 10,000 - if you havent adapted by then you weren't going to .

And I suspect that's the position of many - unfortunately as soon as you question the climate lobby - you are howled down with derision - you can not hold serious debate or ask for facts - hence most people are unaware that its a cumulative effect and the world wont cool as much in future - because the science was dumbed down and accepted Vested interests wont now allow question to be asked or answered -lest it cost them money.

Rather than berating anyone who dare ask - what exactly is the problem - they should be explaining the whole mean average increase and why that is a problem.

Whilst there at it stop saying were killing the planet - were not - we may render it uninhabitable for us - but that wont kill it - height of arrogance to conflate our extinction with killing the earth

**The mean change issue has modified my position
 
So what's the answer, eugenics?
 
It really isn't.

But it does prove my point brilliantly
it really is. There is a distinction between whether humans are exacerbating climate change or not through human activity and greenhouse gas emissions.

deniers say they are not.

which is very different to changes in taxation.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
To sustain rampant capitalism requires rampant population growth. The Earth's resources getting increasingly raped to provide the resources for the increase in population and increase in capitalism.
If anarchy/Communism has the answer to all this why are so many "Socialist" nations causing the majority (apart from volcanoes) of the pollution and warming?
 
Also perfectly possible to believe climate change is cyclic and we entered a warmer period circa 11,000 years ago (when the glaciers covered Scotland in a mile of ice). The question is whether man is helping it along and by how much. Also in the overall grand scheme of things does it make a great deal of difference?
Not "one" of the many meteorologists I work alongside believe that though.
 
Also perfectly possible to believe climate change is cyclic and we entered a warmer period circa 11,000 years ago (when the glaciers covered Scotland in a mile of ice). The question is whether man is helping it along and by how much. Also in the overall grand scheme of things does it make a great deal of difference?
I think you’ll find most climatologists believe there to have been cyclical climate change in the past. The Holocene has “mostly” had pretty nice periodicity.

you seem to be agreeing that the question is if humans are having an effect and if so how much.

And nearly all major scientific journals, organisations, universities seem to think human emissions arexhaving
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
So what's the answer, eugenics?
When I was in Chatenay-Malabry I was quite involved with a lass named Eugenie. She came from a little village called Bievres near a certain airfield.
 
So what's the answer, eugenics?
Im not sure breeding for better looking people is going to solve the issue of arrogance - ignorance and stupidity.

Probably the best thing very short term would for the likes of XR to be kicked into touch and any other group of watermelons using genuine concerns regarding environment as a stalking horse for a red revolution - along with associated anti capitalist behaviour-
In that way the vast majority wouldn't be alienated and environmentalism could be focused on actually protecting the environment.

Then lets focus on the biggest threat we face - Agriculture - we need to reduce meat and fish consumption - stop growing cereals for meat and break up large fields with rows of hedges and trees - to protect soil (soil erosion could see barren fields in 30-40 years - that's a bigger issue than climate change. Step away from chemical pesticides and fertilizers. keep Pigs and sheep in orchards / woodland etc

The above measures will of course have a positive effect on climate change and biodiversity as well.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Meanwhile the climate change mob believe the solution involves more green taxes or adopting Marxist theories rather than fighting to reduce mankinds population levels
Man-Made Global Warming is the perfect environmental crisis mechanism for politicians. They can hang whatever agenda they wish on the back of it, particularly revenue-raising, it's impossible to prove or disprove, there's always someone or something else to blame when the data refuses to play ball and the timescale for solving the problem is suitably distant so they can't be held to account.

Contrast it with real environmental problems and you can see why it's the preferred option for establishing environmental credentials. Over-population is the primary cause of habitat loss and loss of bio-diversity but it's way too difficult to tackle without having to make some hard choices and adopt a hard position - given where the population increases are concentrated, can you imagine the trauma for delicate social science types being forced to decide how many brown people our planet can sustain? Even if one can avoid the over-population point and allegations of racism, tackling habitat loss and loss of bio-diversity generally means having a fight with all the developing countries about how they're developing and consequently risking accusations of that other ultra-liberal taboo, colonialism.

It's far easier to talk b0llocks about MMGW in the fleshpots of the world whilst smashing taxes through the roof, blowing the budget on grandiose and nonsensical emissions reductions strategies and attempting to solve what is supposed to be a problem with the global atmosphere by offshoring all the emissions to China.
 
Last edited:
Not "one" of the many meteorologists I work alongside believe that though.
Meteorologists have a set of records going back 100 or years and think in that timeframe. Geological and climate cycles last a bit longer than that.
 
Man-Made Global Warming is the perfect environmental crisis mechanism for politicians. They can hang whatever agenda they wish on the back of it, particularly revenue-raising, it's impossible to prove or disprove, there's always someone or something else to blame when the data refuses to play ball and the timescale for solving the problem is suitably distant so they can't be held to account.

Contrast it with real environmental problems and you can see why it's the preferred option for establishing environmental credentials. Over-population is the primary cause of habitat loss and loss of bio-diversity but it's way too difficult to tackle without having to make some hard choices and adopt a hard position - given where the population increases are concentrated, can you imagine the trauma for delicate social science types being forced to decide how many brown people our planet can sustain? Even if one can avoid the over-population point and potentially allegations of racism, tackling habitat loss and loss of bio-diversity generally means having a fight with all the developing countries about how they're developing and consequently risking accusation of that other ultra-liberal taboo, colonialism.

It's far easier to talk b0llocks about MMGW in the fleshpots of the world whilst smashing taxes through the roof, blowing the budget on grandiose and nonsensical emissions reductions strategies and attempting to solve what is supposed to be a problem with the global atmosphere by offshoring all the emissions to China.
Has anyone determined the amount of people each country/ continent can sustain

I look at Europe and think it could probably feed and water itself - the problem is the population is over concentrated in the west.

Africa I feel is about 4 times the size of Europe yet probably could only sustain double the population -on terms of arable land - yet already its consuming more water than it gets - so can Africa for all its size only sustain a European population
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Has anyone determined the amount of people each country/ continent can sustain

I look at Europe and think it could probably feed and water itself - the problem is the population is over concentrated in the west.

Africa I feel is about 4 times the size of Europe yet probably could only sustain double the population -on terms of arable land - yet already its consuming more water than it gets - so can Africa for all its size only sustain a European population
I doubt it - it's the third rail for the environmental movement and belongs firmly in the 'too difficult' pile.

Also, any view of how many people you can sustain will vary according to how much in the way of habitat loss, bio-diversity reduction and environmental degradation one is prepared to accept.
 
China is Socialist ?
No its a typically communist / Socialist state in other words a nepotistic mess of corruption in which those at the top live very comfortable lives and further enrich themselves - whilst those at the bottom grub around with nothing.

Sounds very much like how socialists describe capitalism except of course in the former the peasants are told they own everything and they aren't just making a fat cat rich.

Of course that's not how they are supposed to work - but once you've put man in the loop someone will manoeuvre his way into a position to exploit the others -
 
I don't mean eugenics to produce different traits (although that could be one end result). I think we can all agree that there are too many humans in the world> Humans which are using the resources and causing pollution by doing so. The way to reduce consumption is to reduce the number of consumers. China tried it with their 1 child policy but it didn't work as hoped. In general people in the Western world are not producing as many kids as they were, however that's offset by them living longer. How to reduce the number of human consumers?
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer

Latest Threads

Top