Climate Change

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Lucky Larry

And in first world countries the reason to have more children is to get more money on your SNAP and EBT card, and then to vote in people who will give you even more.

More false fact-less rhetoric to support a right thinking philosophy. It has nothing at all to do with climate change and eveything to do with hooray for our side.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Well....IMHO humanity will NEVER willingly reduce population.

Circumstances WILL! Won't be pretty.

The key to population reduction is development. People are people and when the cost of kids outweighs their benefits they breed less. White, Black or Orange . In any event, a modern society simply requires less people than a generation or 3 back (and with some wit folks could be working full time for a whole lifetime, 7 hours a week ) - the West uses Immigration simply as a way of keeping the local peasants in place and feeding the Pyramid scheme that western economies are based on.......but one day the immigrants will stop coming (as own economies develop) and indeed will also start going "home" (as starting to happen already - even in the USA the days of foreigners fully integrating are long gone, no matter what new passport they have. "Home" is still "Home").

Of course folks will say that the Planet cannot sustain a world wide population that enjoys the same standard of living as in the West, but that is just part of the "there is not enough to go around - for you" argument (you can't be rich if there are no poor - no matter how much money you have, and poor people do as they are told.....including hating other poor people for somehow being responsible for rigging the game to keep them poor ). What is not sustainable is the current western consumer based society (not the principal, just the scale - nothing wrong with making stuff for people to buy, just insane to need folks to continually do that).

The Western version of Capitalism is based on a Ponzi scheme that requires both consumerism and pretend wealth creation (via "the Markets" (betting not investment), Housing bubbles (FFS it's a pile of second hand bricks and wood ) and the Financial Industry (creating imaginary wealth))......obviously we will never change that (as just like the Bernie Maddoff Fund no one who is invested in it (at the top or the bottom) really wants to discover that the Emperor has no clothes because then the game ends - but until then it is great for everyone)......but I suspect that change will happen as other societies develop economically and adopt a different approach and gain a competitive advantage over the West simply by not throwing away the opportunities to create real wealth (not just pretend wealth aka money).

All that change probably not in my lifetime though .

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Big business is not the problem, when was the last time you heard of big business hiring a torturer or funding weapons proliferation, big government and it's pursuit of trendy causes is the problem.

Damn... and there was me thinking it was 'Big Business' that funded and guided/set the Policies of corrupt politicians...
Silly Boatman..

[SailOar]

How global temperatures have changed, 1880-2011.
Complements of NASA

Temperature Data: 1880-2011 - YouTube

[Group9]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Well, yeah. If even you can see it, maybe there's still hope.

Call me the day you get rid of your boat, car, and house, and are ready to live the way we are going to have to demand people in the developing nations live to implement this fix, and I'll do the same.

The irony of a bulletin board full of people, who live a lifestyle that the earth simply does not contain enough raw materials to support for everyone, preaching about environmentalism, is just too funny.

Or is all of this just another instance of liberal angst? (If I am upset about it all of the time, that is good enough).

[scoobert]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In an open environment increased CO2 results in increased predation by pests, thereby reducing crop yields.

In an enclosed space, like a greenhouse, free of pests, it is plant food.

Of course, nitrogen is also plant food. Dump a whole bunch of that on your lawn and watch what happens.

There are optimal limits for everything. Mother nature may have been telling us something when she kept CO2 levels below 300 ppm for all of the history of homo sapiens.

The survival of humans depends of have a habitat and food sources that are appropriate.

you believe everything you see on the internet?
co2 is great for more then just crops. trees love it too. if insects increase, so will insect predators. bats, mack trucks, ect.

300ppm is such a BS story. they do not really know that for sure, as dating systems, ice layers, are not a concrete science.

how do they get away with pseudo science? because later they will say "we were wrong" and revise it.

besides, we contribute 0.5% of global CO2 emissions. Hardly enough to affect anything.

the best thing you can do for the environment is not have kids, and not use medicines to prolong your life. less people means less CO2, right? so why don't all the people who believe in the eco malarkey just not breed?

[scoobert]

Originally Posted by SailOar

How global temperatures have changed, 1880-2011.
Complements of NASA

wow, a total BS line. glad nasa had those satellites up in the late 1800's to watch this stuff.... have you not heard of climate gate? they faked the readings.

[scoobert]

do you find it funny also that the 1883 eruption is the start of the temperature data? volcanoes have a 1 degree cooling effect when they are that massive.
people who view such rubbish need to think for themselves.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Group9

Call me the day you get rid of your boat, car, and house, and are ready to live the way we are going to have to demand people in the developing nations live to implement this fix, and I'll do the same.

The irony of a bulletin board full of people, who live a lifestyle that the earth simply does not contain enough raw materials to support for everyone, preaching about environmentalism, is just too funny.

Or is all of this just another instance of liberal angst? (If I am upset about it all of the time, that is good enough).

Well maybe folk should start with cutting food consumption and return some of the agricultural land to forest..
My food for the day is likely equivalent to one sitting for 80% of Westerners... eat to live... sadly many live to eat...

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by scoobert

wow, a total BS line. glad nasa had those satellites up in the late 1800's to watch this stuff.... have you not heard of climate gate? they faked the readings.

No they didn't , as a subsequent investigation found out. The ' red tops' where you seem to get all your information, just printed populist rubbish about it.

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

The Smith bloke was right when he said that the real wealth of nations reside in the skills of it's peoples. We became wealthy by learning how to best value add to resources not because we "grabbed" them. Grabbing them tends to be counter productive in the longer term.

Given the 19th century virtually consisted of efforts to grab natural resources and many conflicts were stated over it , not to mention the subsequent oil grab. You need to read your history. The West grew rich on resources taken often by force from other countries

We really don't know what the world carrying capacity is, according to Malthus and the Club of Rome we should all have starved to death by now and instead almost everyone on earth is better fed. The small famines we still have are a political problem and not because of any deficiency in food supply.

Most famines today are a result of protective pricing policies of major economies against third world imports. Africa could feed itself many tines over

" everyone on earth is better fed" just where is the facts behind this

Most plastics are made from hydrocarbon gasses, petrochemical plants turn natural gas into feed stocks for plastics manufacturers. Hydrocarbons = hydrogen and carbon, plenty of both of them about.

LOL . I love the science. Bit like " sniff snif, ain't no pollution here", by GWB "

If you had told the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk that there will be 600 odd tourists going from New York to Paris in one of those one day someone would have had you committed.

What do we do if they take away our engines? Learn to sail again.

So what , our engines will be there just not petrol powered.

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

The big, bad oil industry only sells what we want to buy and they are the same people who are creating cheap gas in the USA which is becoming a major reducer of CO2 from power stations because it burns cleaner than coal. They are also contributing to the return of industry to the US which has to be good for jobs for t
Big business is not the problem, when was the last time you heard of big business hiring a torturer or funding weapons proliferation, big government and it's pursuit of trendy causes is the problem.

Well there's a summary of Tea oarty thinking , how'd they do in the recent election

Dave

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Group9

Call me the day you get rid of your boat, car, and house, and are ready to live the way we are going to have to demand people in the developing nations live to implement this fix, and I'll do the same.

The irony of a bulletin board full of people, who live a lifestyle that the earth simply does not contain enough raw materials to support for everyone, preaching about environmentalism, is just too funny.

If you are saying there are not enough resources in the world to provide everyone with a boat, a car and a house we likely live on different planets . What probably not enough resources for is everyone to have new ones every week.........but with all of those no actual need, just need to build (and design) them to last longer than a fortnight ......and not have an economy based upon short term obsolescence and replacement (and in the case of houses, not based on Pyramid / Bubble pricing - but on cost, and worth in s/h bricks and wood)..........the secret is the same as at present - rig the market , except for the benefit of the majority not the minority.........of course that would require folks who are getting shafted to a) realise they are being shafted (even when they have a job paying enough to raise a family) and b) to realise that the people doing the shafting are those telling them to hate other peasants, not those other peasants. Divide and conquer lives on.

From this side of the World, it seems kinda obvious that both the Tea party Yeehadists! and Pinko Commie Liberals are on the same page, they both realise that things ain't working out under the current system (regime?) and know things need to change for the average Joe to get a fair shake of the stick, just that the Tea party think that more (extreme version) of the same will work . Kinda like in the Soviet Union, folks so full of Propaganda that their comfort blanket was holding out for the mythical "True Communism" , but that the same as "True Capitalism"..........mythical!

Or is all of this just another instance of liberal angst? (If I am upset about it all of the time, that is good enough).

Not really, I think it is simply about rational people wanting the future to be better than today for both themselves and their neighbours (as neighbours doing better also works better for them)......whereas others want more of the same that ain't working anymore, and think that success is only a comparative thing. On some things everybody can win....and economics is one of those.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by scoobert

do you find it funny also that the 1883 eruption is the start of the temperature data? volcanoes have a 1 degree cooling effect when they are that massive.
people who view such rubbish need to think for themselves.

The temperature video started in 1880, not 1883. The cooling effects of major volcanoes last only a few years.

I try not to think for myself on topics which I am not an expert. It usually results in the wrong conclusion. I have noticed that same result for others as well.

Volcanoes and Climate Change | NASA

Major eruptions alter the Earth's radiative balance because volcanic aerosol clouds absorb terrestrial radiation, and scatter a significant amount of the incoming solar radiation, an effect known as "radiative forcing" that can last from two to three years following a volcanic eruption.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Group9

Call me the day you get rid of your boat, car, and house, and are ready to live the way we are going to have to demand people in the developing nations live to implement this fix, and I'll do the same.

The irony of a bulletin board full of people, who live a lifestyle that the earth simply does not contain enough raw materials to support for everyone, preaching about environmentalism, is just too funny.

Or is all of this just another instance of liberal angst? (If I am upset about it all of the time, that is good enough).

You make the error of conflating your feelings about the consequences of climate change with the reality of it. Wishing something to be true (or wishing it weren't true) has no effect on its essential truth.

And, btw, I lived in the developing world (India, Thailand) for a decade and now, and as a liveaboard on the Chesapeake -- without A/C and with few acquisitions due to space considerations -- probably have among the smallest carbon footprints in the country.

I'm not saying that's for everyone, but it works well for me.