Global Warming Debate

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Parson Malthus, pleased to meet you!

Big families aren't producing greenhouse gasses. Small selfish ones in the developed West are.

[brownjenkins]

I'm not blaming any kind of family, just pointing out the biggest factor that will change our environment over time... more and more people. Even in China, which is heavily populated and has some rather draconian birth laws, the population is still growing year to year.

More people = more waste and consumption. And history shows that humans will continue to reproduce in greater numbers no matter how harsh the conditions.

All the proposals are really baby steps, if that, when you look at the big picture, and are based upon today's populations, not the exponentially larger ones of a hundred years from now.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

RTR, sorry if you've interpreted my posts as personal attacks; they weren't intended as such.

No Problem like I said you're awesome (you're in my sig after all ).

However, I stand by my assertion that there is a concerted campaign from the Right to discredit the evidence on global warming by whatever means possible.

Thats possible, but in politics it cuts both ways, and theres at least a self fulfilling prophecy by the left to want to be true.

Its not an issue of whether it happens, Its been covered in this thread. But there is little to no evidence to say that it is man-made. The earth warmed and cooled before emissions and oil industries and beef industries, and it will probably warm and cool after.

When you say things like "lets fix this so our grandkids don't have too" I totally agree about: Social security(in U.S.A anyway) Education (again U.S) and the middle east (for all countries) these are problems our generation should be able to fix (well the middle east is an open question). This idea we can effect nature E.G. the whole global warming thing is chancy at best and a waste of money and resources at worst.

A professor recently told me emissions have been going down since the 1930's and they actually peaked back 1890's 1900's at the height of the industrial revolution.

Anyway if you want to cut down on emissions drastically why don't you get China to do something about it? I'm pretty sure the'yre the worst violators according to enviromental standards. Am I right?

Well its been fun guys. Keep it real.

Originally Posted by Socrates

Know thyself.

[Nurvingiel]

I'd like to point out that Rohirrim TR and Hectorberlioz are the only people in this thread who have made any reference, joking or serious, to cows somehow contributing to global warming.

They also both happen to be arguing the case that people did not contribute to global warming.

So why is it that these guys make reference to a human creation (the domestication of cattle and mass aggregation thereof), when they are arguing that people did not contribute to global warming.

Is it because this argument is totally ridiculous, and if anyone arguing that humans do contribute to global warming would look totally ridiculous making it, so by bringing it up they are trying to make our arguments look dumb?

If we won't make that argument, you'll do it for us?

A professor recently told me emissions have been going down since the 1930's and they actually peaked back 1890's 1900's at the height of the industrial revolution.

I wish that were so. But what possible evidence could he have for that? I need to go to bed, but some time, I'll find some evidence for you showing that emissions have not been decreasing since the Industrial Revolution. Unfortunately.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

and unnecessarily negative.

This is a chart of CO2 emissions per capita.
http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statisti...ators/202.html

It's not even accurate as to source, if we consider that some of the rise in the developing world is due to the consuming power of the developed world, that permits them to "outsource" their problems. One of the main arguments against "globalization" imo, is that it supports this ability to nimby our problems instead of solving them.

But you can see that if everyone was running at 6 per capita, (perfectly possible in modern countries, and about where Sweden and Switzerland are) we'd be looking at a lot fewer emissions from some of the big players.

I've seen a lot of shots taken here at Al Gore. Personalizing the debate in that way just looks silly, to me. But I'd have to say there are a LOT of Americans who are very used to taking the biggest slice of pie, in every sense. They eat a diet of animal products and extensively denatured foods. They live in ridiculously large houses. They have highly disposable lifestyles in so many ways. The energy cost difference between a local apple and a McDonald's pie isn't carried by the consumer price. It's charged to the planet.

If people could get a grip on that, you'd see how little "population" per se, is the issue yet. The issue is how people choose to live.

Here, here's the bonus track. http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid346.php
Tip for the day, folks. Unplug the i-pod and phone chargers except when you're using them.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'd like to point out that Rohirrim TR and Hectorberlioz are the only people in this thread who have made any reference, joking or serious, to cows somehow contributing to global warming.

They also both happen to be arguing the case that people did not contribute to global warming.

So why is it that these guys make reference to a human creation (the domestication of cattle and mass aggregation thereof), when they are arguing that people did not contribute to global warming.

Is it because this argument is totally ridiculous, and if anyone arguing that humans do contribute to global warming would look totally ridiculous making it, so by bringing it up they are trying to make our arguments look dumb?

If we won't make that argument, you'll do it for us?

Nurv- Its called irony, possibly a slight touch of sarcasm. Its also a fact, the cow thing, you'll find it in any number of science textbooks.

I wish that were so. But what possible evidence could he have for that? I need to go to bed, but some time, I'll find some evidence for you showing that emissions have not been decreasing since the Industrial Revolution. Unfortunately.

Source..like I said college professor World Geography, did you read my whole post?

Originally Posted by Socrates

Know thyself.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'd like to point out that Rohirrim TR and Hectorberlioz are the only people in this thread who have made any reference, joking or serious, to cows somehow contributing to global warming.

Nurv, it was in the frickin' news in 2006. And Earniel herself explained it to me quite a few pages ago...

[The Telcontarion]

This documentary on global warming is amazing. First aired on channel 4 in england it gives the history of the global warming debate and the actual reasons why the earth is warming up, ie the sun. Facts, fact, facts.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arming+Swindle

[The Telcontarion]

computer doesn't have sound, use head phones.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

If people could get a grip on that, you'd see how little "population" per se, is the issue yet. The issue is how people choose to live.

So are you saying that our planet can sustain an unlimited number of humans without any negative environmental effects?

World population has doubled over the past 40 years, and historical data points to each "doubling" taking progressively less and less time. It's a rough science, but it is completely reasonable to expect world population to be double what it is today 50 years from now, and double that again in another 50 after that. All of which more than destroys the per capita savings you point out simply because you have so much more "capita".

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

that population growth will have its own challenges. I disagree that population growth is the essential emergency in global warming. (which is, after all, the topic of this thread )

If you'd like to start listing problems that may very well take us out before global warming has a chance to, I'll play,

Maybe we could call it the "doom and gloom" thread.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So are you saying that our planet can sustain an unlimited number of humans without any negative environmental effects?

World population has doubled over the past 40 years, and historical data points to each "doubling" taking progressively less and less time. It's a rough science, but it is completely reasonable to expect world population to be double what it is today 50 years from now, and double that again in another 50 after that. All of which more than destroys the per capita savings you point out simply because you have so much more "capita".

But of course you forget something BJ: there will not always be that number of people at one time. Older folks die off eventually, and just look at the number of car wrecks we have in this country every year.
That may be only a simple reduction of what you're calling the "doubling" population, but still.

I'm not afraid of overpopulation. Overpopulation only exists in cities. Some people just need to move to Nebraska and the Dakotas, that's all.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I'm not afraid of overpopulation. Overpopulation only exists in cities. Some people just need to move to Nebraska and the Dakotas, that's all.

You first, dude. *shoves*

btdt

[The Gaffer]

El Tel, you already posted that. It's basically discredited nonsense and the guy who made it is a known fraudster.

Here's how I replied: http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=158

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

that population growth will have its own challenges. I disagree that population growth is the essential emergency in global warming. (which is, after all, the topic of this thread )

If you'd like to start listing problems that may very well take us out before global warming has a chance to, I'll play,

Maybe we could call it the "doom and gloom" thread.

It's simple math, not doom and gloom. Quadrupling our population in the next 100 years will increase the global warming threat to a greater extent than any kind of lifestyle changes can make up for.

And "staying on topic" has never been a concern of mine for the last six years, so I'm not about to start now.

Plus, it's a lot more "on topic" than you think. It's the elephant in the living room that no one wants to acknowledge because the idea of population control is so unpalitable.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But of course you forget something BJ: there will not always be that number of people at one time. Older folks die off eventually, and just look at the number of car wrecks we have in this country every year.
That may be only a simple reduction of what you're calling the "doubling" population, but still.

Actually, it is the number of people alive at one time. It's birth against deaths, not just births.

Darn politicians!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Overpopulation only exists in cities. Some people just need to move to Nebraska and the Dakotas, that's all.

And cut down some trees? Build more houses? Eat more food? Use more electricity?

Good solution.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Don't you have children, BJ? Most of my zpg friends kinda sat that one out.

[brownjenkins]

Four boys!

I'm part of the problem, not the solution.

[brownjenkins]

Here's the two middle ones preparing for the day when the earth is a burntout husk and they'll have to move out into the galaxy in search of habitable planets.

Jedi Knights

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I just flat out do not believe that those two are part of any significant problem. They're clearly the hope of the future.

Being that that is part of my faith picture (and thus immune to argument) you will have no success in convincing me that plans for continuing existance of the species involves limiting the gene pool in such a way that young Skywalker, at least, wouldn't have joined us.

Similar to Emma Goldman's observation on the Soviet Union, usually quoted as

"If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution."
http://sunsite3.berkeley.edu/Goldman...s_shulman.html

if your future requires I give up these, include me out.