COUNT ME OUT ...
Discussion
Sorry if this is a repost, but please visit the science museum website, link below, and place a simple vote.
ABD said:
They would like to know whether you would like to be
counted in or out of climate change hysteria.
It's all going horribly wrong for their little propaganda show already:
506 counted in, 3368 counted out, so far.
Do join in and help them dig a bigger hole for themselves.
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspxcounted in or out of climate change hysteria.
It's all going horribly wrong for their little propaganda show already:
506 counted in, 3368 counted out, so far.
Do join in and help them dig a bigger hole for themselves.
"Visit PROVE IT! the Science Museum's exciting new project, to find out more about climate change... Why it's happening. Why time is running out. What the world is planning to do about it at the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen this December."
Those scientist f
kwits are awfully biased.
Those scientist f
kwits are awfully biased.
Science Museum said:
Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a collaboration between thousands of scientists and governments from 130 countries. They are considered the most trustworthy group of experts on climate change in the world. Every six years they produce a report reviewing all the latest research into climate change. In 2007 they concluded that it’s very likely the global warming in the last 50 years was caused by humans.
So not enough evidence to be sure then, Court adjourned!!The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a collaboration between thousands of scientists and governments from 130 countries. They are considered the most trustworthy group of experts on climate change in the world. Every six years they produce a report reviewing all the latest research into climate change. In 2007 they concluded that it’s very likely the global warming in the last 50 years was caused by humans.
What always intrigues me, is that all these scientists and politicians who profess such concern about the state of the environment and climate change, have to travel to meet and discuss.
Surely, now, technology is such that one can stay in one's own country and debate with others via video conferencing?
Or, perhaps, all love a jolly, at others' expense?
Surely, now, technology is such that one can stay in one's own country and debate with others via video conferencing?
Or, perhaps, all love a jolly, at others' expense?
OnTheOverrun said:
If you choose count me out it takes you to a confirmation page with a link called 'Evidence' which contains only pro-climate change opinions and no evidence and no anti information or opinions.
I've used the 'contact us' link to complain about the entirely biased basis of their poll.
Eh...?I've used the 'contact us' link to complain about the entirely biased basis of their poll.
It took me to a page that let me cry bulls
t....mybrainhurts said:
OnTheOverrun said:
If you choose count me out it takes you to a confirmation page with a link called 'Evidence' which contains only pro-climate change opinions and no evidence and no anti information or opinions.
I've used the 'contact us' link to complain about the entirely biased basis of their poll.
Eh...?I've used the 'contact us' link to complain about the entirely biased basis of their poll.
It took me to a page that let me cry bulls
t....http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit/evidence.a...
Let’s assume the MMGW camp is broadly correct for the sake of argument. Even if MMGW is completely wrong there must be a finite limit to how many people the planet can support. (I don't believe in MMGW personally, I wish it were true)
A recent vast increase in the human population who’s behaviour is altering the climate. Suppose the global population were to be suddenly reduced?
At some level, the population would be sufficiently low that it wouldn’t affect the climate and it would stabilise and recover, even if all the survivors drove evil 4X4’s.
Recently there has been great outcry about saving people. It seems that most of the advertising on TV either carries the message that we can buy salvation for the planet, or support unlimited numbers of people, sometimes both. Our product is greener and saves lives, please give just £2 per month.
Darwin doesn’t apply when a society is able to keep alive and encourage the breeding of virtually all that are born.
Let’s assume the effects of climate change cause the various predicted phenomena and these kill large numbers of people. The system is therefore self-stabilising. Better still, Darwinian selection will select who survives and the human species will be improved.
The longer it takes for this to happen, the worse it will be. Generations of people are mentally and physically unprepared for work, effort and survival without high levels of social support. The attitudes which carried our ancestors through adversity are eroding.
The Dodo was given enough time to evolve into something unprepared to face adversity. When adversity came it was incapable of stabilising its numbers at a lower level. If humanity is given enough time then it will achieve the same. It doesn’t need physical evolutionary change, just the loss of the mental ability to adapt to a changing environment.
It would be better if MMGW were true and apocalyptic change imminent. That way we have a chance at stabilising the global population at a higher number. Until about 1700AD the estimated global population was relatively stable at half a billion. By 1900 it was nearly 2 billion; around 6 billion now and a projected 9 billion by 2050. (Source US Census Bureau).
Even if we all cut our emissions, the population increase will cancel it out. It doesn’t matter if we all keep producing the same Carbon footprint or not, only population decrease will solve the problem.
Unfortunately we have got ourselves into a political and philosophical trap. Most Western countries have an ethical system constructed around the rights of an individual, primarily to life. This makes it impossible to contemplate acquiescing to the death of billions or the prohibition of births until the population stabilises at a sustainable level. Much of the rest of the world is locked into religious and cultural norms that encourage large families. Only a totalitarian regime could enforce a limited birth rate. And such governments would come under political pressure from the human rights lobby in other nations. As such, it’s unlikely that any international cooperation on global population reduction is achievable. It will take a natural event like climate change to achieve it.
It’s not just dinosaurs that can get so big that they suddenly go extinct.
A recent vast increase in the human population who’s behaviour is altering the climate. Suppose the global population were to be suddenly reduced?
At some level, the population would be sufficiently low that it wouldn’t affect the climate and it would stabilise and recover, even if all the survivors drove evil 4X4’s.
Recently there has been great outcry about saving people. It seems that most of the advertising on TV either carries the message that we can buy salvation for the planet, or support unlimited numbers of people, sometimes both. Our product is greener and saves lives, please give just £2 per month.
Darwin doesn’t apply when a society is able to keep alive and encourage the breeding of virtually all that are born.
Let’s assume the effects of climate change cause the various predicted phenomena and these kill large numbers of people. The system is therefore self-stabilising. Better still, Darwinian selection will select who survives and the human species will be improved.
The longer it takes for this to happen, the worse it will be. Generations of people are mentally and physically unprepared for work, effort and survival without high levels of social support. The attitudes which carried our ancestors through adversity are eroding.
The Dodo was given enough time to evolve into something unprepared to face adversity. When adversity came it was incapable of stabilising its numbers at a lower level. If humanity is given enough time then it will achieve the same. It doesn’t need physical evolutionary change, just the loss of the mental ability to adapt to a changing environment.
It would be better if MMGW were true and apocalyptic change imminent. That way we have a chance at stabilising the global population at a higher number. Until about 1700AD the estimated global population was relatively stable at half a billion. By 1900 it was nearly 2 billion; around 6 billion now and a projected 9 billion by 2050. (Source US Census Bureau).
Even if we all cut our emissions, the population increase will cancel it out. It doesn’t matter if we all keep producing the same Carbon footprint or not, only population decrease will solve the problem.
Unfortunately we have got ourselves into a political and philosophical trap. Most Western countries have an ethical system constructed around the rights of an individual, primarily to life. This makes it impossible to contemplate acquiescing to the death of billions or the prohibition of births until the population stabilises at a sustainable level. Much of the rest of the world is locked into religious and cultural norms that encourage large families. Only a totalitarian regime could enforce a limited birth rate. And such governments would come under political pressure from the human rights lobby in other nations. As such, it’s unlikely that any international cooperation on global population reduction is achievable. It will take a natural event like climate change to achieve it.
It’s not just dinosaurs that can get so big that they suddenly go extinct.
Will go with the assumption that CO2 is in fact causing global warming (highly debatable though). So we are desperately trying to cut our emissions, only slight flaw is as follows, fossil fuels have a very limited life, we are already at the peak of the bell curve and supplies will reduce drastically in the coming years. Therefore CO2 emissions will go reduce appropriately in line with the reduction in actual fossil fuel availability.
If CO2 is the cause though, we have as another poster pointed out a far larger problem, world population. At present each human produces around a quarter of a tonne of the stuff per year, given that the population will rise to 9 billion from the current six in the next 30-40 years we are in fact in far more in danger of global warming from shagging like rabbits than we are from fossil fuels.
So my prediction for the next round of green taxes, most likely Gordon will start charging us a Fiver for every shag we have. Will leave it to you guys to come up with scenarios on how this can be enforced and policed.
If CO2 is the cause though, we have as another poster pointed out a far larger problem, world population. At present each human produces around a quarter of a tonne of the stuff per year, given that the population will rise to 9 billion from the current six in the next 30-40 years we are in fact in far more in danger of global warming from shagging like rabbits than we are from fossil fuels.
So my prediction for the next round of green taxes, most likely Gordon will start charging us a Fiver for every shag we have. Will leave it to you guys to come up with scenarios on how this can be enforced and policed.
chimera40 said:
So my prediction for the next round of green taxes, most likely Gordon will start charging us a Fiver for every shag we have. Will leave it to you guys to come up with scenarios on how this can be enforced and policed.
We need more cameras?Oh s
t, BB.Damn those writers.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff