Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[LongQ]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Apologies but that is only one report, When I google peak fish, I get numerous reports, indicating that the world past peak fish, in circa 1986. (and this is with the demand for fish protein based on the `current' global population) So which reports are to be believed?
Even on the incidental viewing of a program about the Mekong river, the native Cambodians were stating that the fish they depend on, were getting scarcer and harder to find, so who is to be believed?
Additionally, how will adding another 3 to 4 billion people to the existing 7 billion on the planet (in just the next 30 to 40 years) who will want fish protein (and just about everything else one could think of) improve the situation?

So you think the report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (assuming that such an organisation officially exists) is completely wrong? In fact so wrong they must be lying to us for some reason. As proven by .... anecdotal opinions of people seeking to fish in the Mekong river? Is their view representative of Global numbers?

OK, it's the UN, I could buy that.

But then the question arises: What would be the motive?

Normally the UN is about Global Control and managing human activity by stressing risk. The Fish report seems quit positive over all.

Something does not stack up.

More politics than science perhaps - but which way is the political activity headed? To control people directly or to control governments?

[Mr GrimNasty]

chris watton said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Except that the global population is growing at net rates of up between 247 and 346 thousand per DAY.

So what's your solution, do you think: Either bring the poor nations up to speed with education, cheap power and better lifestyle, or leave them in the Dark Ages and let them die?

The more advanced country's get, the less children they breed?

It could be argued, with some degree of validity, that Green ideology is responsible for the deaths of thousands per day.

Edited by chris watton on Wednesday 22 April 15:43

The pattern with UK immigration has been that they breed like rabbits once they get here, many country of origin groups are averaging 4.3-5.6 children in the UK, the result is the UK average has increased from about 1.5 to 1.8 children in just a decade!

[Pan Pan Pan]

hidetheelephants said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

I do not believe there is a solution. Ochone, ochone.

As you're repeating yourself I'll join in; economic growth slows and eventually stops population growth. As pithily presented by Hans Rosling the point at which this occurs is around the point of widespread affordability of electric washing machines and a reliable electricity and water supply to run them.

And you appear to be deliberately ignoring facts. So called developed countries may slow their rate of population increase (except that is not what is happening in the UK is it?) but once developed, their rate of resource take up is greater. Given countries such as China and India both with colossal populations, and until fairly recently largely agrarian cultures, are now doing their level best to industrialise. This is why the ecomentalists bleat on about the average American using up to 15 times the resources of the average Ethiopian.
A finite planet with finite resources, set against an already collossal and growing at a rate, that has never been seen on Earth before, industrializing human population. Where does plain common sense tell you this scenario will eventually go?
As posted earlier. I really don't care about what eventually happens, because the nasty stuff is only likely to kick in, long after I have gone, and I am lucky enough to live in a developed country,
The stupidity of the ecomentalists who bang on about MMGW, emissions, and rain forest destruction, depletion of resources, burning of fossil fuels etc, etc, whilst completely ignoring the obvious root cause of all of it (the colossal and rapidly increasing global human population) is beyond the pale, Which is why I ignore them completely.

[Scuffers]

he's a radical idea

why don't we stop saving people in africa etc.

[Jinx]

Pan Pan Pan said:

And you appear to be deliberately ignoring facts. So called developed countries may slow their rate of population increase (except that is not what is happening in the UK is it?) but once developed, their rate of resource take up is greater. Given countries such as China and India both with colossal populations, and until fairly recently largely agrarian cultures, are now doing their level best to industrialise. This is why the ecomentalists bleat on about the average American using up to 15 times the resources of the average Ethiopian.
A finite planet with finite resources, set against an already collossal and growing at a rate, that has never been seen on Earth before, industrializing human population. Where does plain common sense tell you this scenario will eventually go?
As posted earlier. I really don't care about what eventually happens, because the nasty stuff is only likely to kick in, long after I have gone, and I am lucky enough to live in a developed country,
The stupidity of the ecomentalists who bang on about MMGW, emissions, and rain forest destruction, depletion of resources, burning of fossil fuels etc, etc, whilst completely ignoring the obvious root cause of all of it (the colossal and rapidly increasing global human population) is beyond the pale, Which is why I ignore them completely.

That's where you are going wrong - as long as the sun keeps converting hydrogen into helium we do not have limited resources. The majority of the earth is empty of human life - you could fit most of us on the Isle of Wight without multi story buildings. The UK is only growing due to immigration and population growth within the new immigrant population - this will settle.

[The Don of Croy]

Pan Pan Pan said:

...And you appear to be deliberately ignoring facts. So called developed countries may slow their rate of population increase (except that is not what is happening in the UK is it?) ...

For years the UK birthrate was 2.4 - so well known was it that there was even a sitcom with that as the title (2.4 Children iirc).

We're just getting back up to 1.8. Still way below where we were.

Economically how could we hope to cover our costs with a declining population? Especially with our historic low productivity rates?

Although I agree with you that the Greens et al miss the point, I believe they do know all about over population and have chosen - wisely - not to bleat on about it for political reasons.

I take it you've read about 'Malthusian ideas' and similar concerns regarding the earth's 'finite' resources?

[Jacobyte]

Jinx said:

The majority of the earth is empty of human life - you could fit most of us on the Isle of Wight

This isn't true. The area of the IOW is 380 sq Km, which is 380,000,000 sq m. So assuming 1 sq M per person, that'll only hold 380 Million people.

So we'd need somewhere larger, like Cyprus, which has over 8,000 sq Km (good for the current 7+ Bn people). Still, it's still a very tiny area in the grand scheme of things.

[mybrainhurts]

Not had one of these for a while...

We're all out of puff...

[Jinx]

Jacobyte said:

This isn't true. The area of the IOW is 380 sq Km, which is 380,000,000 sq m. So assuming 1 sq M per person, that'll only hold 380 Million people.

So we'd need somewhere larger, like Cyprus, which has over 8,000 sq Km (good for the current 7+ Bn people). Still, it's still a very tiny area in the grand scheme of things.

I was thinking more Tube Train than an entire square metre each

[Pan Pan Pan]

Jinx said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

And you appear to be deliberately ignoring facts. So called developed countries may slow their rate of population increase (except that is not what is happening in the UK is it?) but once developed, their rate of resource take up is greater. Given countries such as China and India both with colossal populations, and until fairly recently largely agrarian cultures, are now doing their level best to industrialise. This is why the ecomentalists bleat on about the average American using up to 15 times the resources of the average Ethiopian.
A finite planet with finite resources, set against an already collossal and growing at a rate, that has never been seen on Earth before, industrializing human population. Where does plain common sense tell you this scenario will eventually go?
As posted earlier. I really don't care about what eventually happens, because the nasty stuff is only likely to kick in, long after I have gone, and I am lucky enough to live in a developed country,
The stupidity of the ecomentalists who bang on about MMGW, emissions, and rain forest destruction, depletion of resources, burning of fossil fuels etc, etc, whilst completely ignoring the obvious root cause of all of it (the colossal and rapidly increasing global human population) is beyond the pale, Which is why I ignore them completely.

That's where you are going wrong - as long as the sun keeps converting hydrogen into helium we do not have limited resources. The majority of the earth is empty of human life - you could fit most of us on the Isle of Wight without multi story buildings. The UK is only growing due to immigration and population growth within the new immigrant population - this will settle.

Try growing bananas in the Arctic, or spuds in the Atlantic, (not even all of the worlds oceans are capable of supporting marine life, many are just marine deserts.
It is not just a matter of physical space, but one of `viable' space for habitation, planting of crops, raising livestock etc. The majority of the Earth is empty for a simple reason, even with current technologies, we just can`t live there.
It `seems' you see no problem with growing the global population of the earth to the the soylent green stage, whereas I expect / hope to be long gone, well before we get anywhere near that point.
Do you believe that resources such as rain forests, oil, coal, fish, minerals, viable agricultural land, and land as living space, other species etc, are infinite?
I regret I do not see how they can be.
They say that anarchy is just a few meals away, and this is evidenced by the cleaned out supermarkets, and spats over, fuel, milk, bread etc, when just a hint of a shortage is mentioned even in the `civilised UK.

[Jinx]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Try growing bananas in the Arctic, or spuds in the Atlantic, (not even all of the worlds oceans are capable of supporting marine life, many are just marine deserts.
It is not just a matter of physical space, but one of `viable' space for habitation, planting of crops, raising livestock etc. The majority of the Earth is empty for a simple reason, even with current technologies, we just can`t live there.
It `seems' you see no problem with growing the global population of the earth to the the soylent green stage, whereas I expect / hope to be long gone, well before we get anywhere near that point.
Do you believe that resources such as rain forests, oil, coal, fish, minerals, viable agricultural land, and land as living space, other species etc, are infinite?
I regret I do not see how they can be.
They say that anarchy is just a few meals away, and this is evidenced by the cleaned out supermarkets, and spats over, fuel, milk, bread etc, when just a hint of a shortage is mentioned even in the `civilised UK.

They are as finite as we are - extra CO2 has been shown to assist in "greening" the earth ergo more life begets more life. No need for soylent green yet (I prefer Soylent orange anyway :doh: ) and all the doom sayers have been wrong.

[Jacobyte]

Jinx said:

Jacobyte said:

This isn't true. The area of the IOW is 380 sq Km, which is 380,000,000 sq m. So assuming 1 sq M per person, that'll only hold 380 Million people.

So we'd need somewhere larger, like Cyprus, which has over 8,000 sq Km (good for the current 7+ Bn people). Still, it's still a very tiny area in the grand scheme of things.

I was thinking more Tube Train than an entire square metre each

Fair point! And taking it the other way: if all 7 billion humans stood equidistantly from each other across the entire land mass of the planet, we'd have 2 hectares each, which is 10 x more than required for subsistence farming.

[rovermorris999]

Jacobyte said:

Fair point! And taking it the other way: if all 7 billion humans stood equidistantly from each other across the entire land mass of the planet, we'd have 2 hectares each, which is 10 x more than required for subsistence farming.

Baggsy me some grade 1 farmland with a water supply somewhere nice. You can have Antartica or Siberia.

[motco]

Jinx said:

Jacobyte said:

This isn't true. The area of the IOW is 380 sq Km, which is 380,000,000 sq m. So assuming 1 sq M per person, that'll only hold 380 Million people.

So we'd need somewhere larger, like Cyprus, which has over 8,000 sq Km (good for the current 7+ Bn people). Still, it's still a very tiny area in the grand scheme of things.

I was thinking more Tube Train than an entire square metre each

A square foot then!

[Diderot]

BBC still trotting out Himalaya glacier wkery by 2035. Cf BBC four Wild China tonight. But sadly you'll have to wait right till the end until the narrator - gis a job - unleashes the coup de grace,

They just can't help themselves.

[mybrainhurts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJhNGEAGiJA

And here we have a couple of Aussies making tits of themselves and publishing it for posterity.

Includes one NSFW word, shock, horror...Bruce...

[The Don of Croy]

mybrainhurts said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJhNGEAGiJA

And here we have a couple of Aussies making tits of themselves and publishing it for posterity.

Includes one NSFW word, shock, horror...Bruce...

They've attracted less than a thousand views so far, and seeing the side bar that's about the average for them. So not too many takers.

Meanwhile, back at the beeb last night's edition of The Archers (which reaches around five million people every week) ended with the village flood committee meeting rounding up thusly;

Jennifer "Kate was saying only this morning that she's sure that global warming must have a lot to do with it"
David "She could be right"
Jim Lloyd "It's common knowledge there's been a marked increase in the incidence of extreme weather"
Jennifer "Yeah, and that's all around the World"

- but it's a completely fictional account of life, so that's alright.

[turbobloke]

Diderot said:

BBC still trotting out Himalaya glacier wkery by 2035. Cf BBC four Wild China tonight. But sadly you'll have to wait right till the end until the narrator - gis a job - unleashes the coup de grace,

They just can't help themselves.

They surely can't!

They did the BBC version of a 'correction' back in 2009 but seem to have forgotten already.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387737.stm

[Phud]

seems one university is not worried about research grants

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-305...

[turbobloke]

Phud said:

seems one university is not worried about research grants

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-305...

From the article:
"The Duke-led study says that..."

Duke University is a private research university (USA) which is part-way through a seven-year fundraising campaign that aims to raise $3.25 billion by June 30, 2017.

http://newsoffice.duke.edu/all-about-duke/quick-fa...

It doesn't appear to be dependent on public funding. How long before Big Oil accusations appear is anyone's guess!