Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
LongQ said:
The head of "UN Environment" (for some reason that operation is based in Kenya) has resigned for reasons related to travelling a lot at UN expense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...
Indeed it seems that a lot of travelling costs are incurred by that particular UN operation. Maybe because it is based in Kenya?
Who would have thought the UN Environment operation could be so opposed to its own messages?
I wonder how much smaller the UN delegation to Katowice will be now ...
Stop Press: Erik Solheim's personal plane jockey has refused to resign! Stating "I don't give a fhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...
Indeed it seems that a lot of travelling costs are incurred by that particular UN operation. Maybe because it is based in Kenya?
Who would have thought the UN Environment operation could be so opposed to its own messages?
I wonder how much smaller the UN delegation to Katowice will be now ...
k in what I believe in" 
turbobloke said:
RJG46 said:
If you genuinely care about the environment just don't have children.
You may be interested in a recent publication which disputes the above position (with reasoning!).Summary Snip said:
Far from being the catastrophe that Thanos, the Ehrlichs and other pessimists would have us believe, population growth and carbon fuel-based development in the context of human creativity and free enterprise are the best means to lift people out of poverty, to build resilience against any climate damage that increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions might have, and to make possible a sustained reduction of humanity’s impact on the biosphere.
Of course, if human CO2 effects are indistinguishable against natural variance/background noise, then as we all know, human CO2 is not the issue for climate change and therefore population numbers, in terms of carbon footprints are not an issue.
Having not read that publication, I'm not in a position to counter any of its claims, I do think however that more humans does equate to changing environments, in terms of water usage, land usage etc. etc. , which in turn does change local climates.
Change enough local climates and eventually global climate will take an 'impact'. Would there be consensus on that?
Atomic12C said:
turbobloke said:
RJG46 said:
If you genuinely care about the environment just don't have children.
You may be interested in a recent publication which disputes the above position (with reasoning!).Summary Snip said:
Far from being the catastrophe that Thanos, the Ehrlichs and other pessimists would have us believe, population growth and carbon fuel-based development in the context of human creativity and free enterprise are the best means to lift people out of poverty, to build resilience against any climate damage that increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions might have, and to make possible a sustained reduction of humanity’s impact on the biosphere.
There's this from GWPF coverage of the book, though what follows is from the authors not a GWPF commentator.
Authors said:
In our new book Population Bombed! Exploding the Link between Overpopulation and Climate Change we mark the 50th anniversary of the Ehrlichs’ book by explaining that their predictions bombed because their basic assumptions are flawed.
First, the Ehrlichs assume that human numbers cannot exceed the limits set by a finite system. Bacteria in a test tube of food are used to model such a system: Since the levels of food and waste limit bacterial growth, human population growth, by analogy, ultimately cannot exceed the carrying capacity of test tube Earth.
Second, they assume that wealth and development unavoidably come with larger environmental damage. This assumption is still at the core of pessimistic frameworks, which maintain that physical resource throughputs, not outcomes, matter. So, countries such as Haiti where deforestation and wildlife extermination are rampant are inherently more “sustainable” than richer and cleaner countries like Sweden and Switzerland.
Third, Ehrlich does not acknowledge that, unique among this planet’s species, modern humans: transmit information and knowledge between individuals and through time; innovate by combining existing things in new ways; become efficient through specialization; and engage in long-distance trade, thus achieving, to a degree, a decoupling from local limits, called the “release from proximity.” And the more brains there are, the more solutions. This is why, over time, people in market economies produce more things while using fewer resources per unit of output. Corn growers now produce five or six times more output on the same plot of land as a century ago while using less fertilizer and pesticide than a few decades ago.
Fourth, the Ehrlichs and other pessimists also fail to understand the uniquely beneficial roles played by prices, profits, and losses in the spontaneous and systematic generation of more sustainable — or less problematic — outcomes. When the supply of key resources fails to meet actual demand, their prices increase. This encourages people to use such resources more efficiently, look for more of them, and develop substitutes. Meanwhile, far from rewarding pollution of the environment, the profit motive encourages people to create useful by-products out of waste (our modern synthetic world is largely made out of former petroleum-refining waste products). True, in some cases dealing with pollution came at a cost — building sewage-treatment plants, for example — but these are the types of solutions only a developed society can afford.
Fifth, pessimists are also oblivious to the benefits of unlocking wealth from underground materials such as coal, petroleum, natural gas and mineral resources. Using these spares vast quantities of land. It should go without saying that even a small population will have a much greater impact on its environment if it must rely on agriculture for food, energy and fibres, raise animals for food and locomotion, and harvest wild animals for everything from meat to whale oil. By replacing resources previously extracted from the biosphere with resources extracted from below the ground, people have reduced their overall environmental impact while increasing their standard of living.
Why is it then that after two centuries of evidence to the contrary, the pessimistic narrative still dominates academic and popular debates? Why are so many authors and academics still focusing on the Malthusian collapse scenario — now bound to come from carbon dioxide emissions and the teeming populations that produce them?
The prevalence of apocalyptic rhetoric may be, arguably, due to factors ranging from financial incentives among academics and activists to behavioural heuristics that dictate why worrying is a motivator, and why even well-meaning people rarely change their mind given new evidence. Short-termism may also take some of the blame: Population control and climate activists take for granted the non-scalable benefits of a carbon-fuel economy in which large numbers of people collaborate and innovate. The cognitive biases at the root of our thinking may shape, and in the end distort, the impulse to question “consensus,” particularly in an intellectual climate lacking the motivation to achieve what social psychologist Jonathan Haidt called “institutional disconfirmation.”
Far from being the catastrophe that Thanos, the Ehrlichs and other pessimists would have us believe, population growth and carbon fuel-based development in the context of human creativity and free enterprise are the best means to lift people out of poverty, to build resilience against any climate damage that increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions might have, and to make possible a sustained reduction of humanity’s impact on the biosphere.
Pierre Desrochers, a geography professor at the University of Toronto Mississauga, and Joanna Szurmak, a doctoral candidate at York University, are the authors of Population Bombed! Exploding the Link Between Overpopulation and Climate Change.
HTH. Any queries can go to the authors!First, the Ehrlichs assume that human numbers cannot exceed the limits set by a finite system. Bacteria in a test tube of food are used to model such a system: Since the levels of food and waste limit bacterial growth, human population growth, by analogy, ultimately cannot exceed the carrying capacity of test tube Earth.
Second, they assume that wealth and development unavoidably come with larger environmental damage. This assumption is still at the core of pessimistic frameworks, which maintain that physical resource throughputs, not outcomes, matter. So, countries such as Haiti where deforestation and wildlife extermination are rampant are inherently more “sustainable” than richer and cleaner countries like Sweden and Switzerland.
Third, Ehrlich does not acknowledge that, unique among this planet’s species, modern humans: transmit information and knowledge between individuals and through time; innovate by combining existing things in new ways; become efficient through specialization; and engage in long-distance trade, thus achieving, to a degree, a decoupling from local limits, called the “release from proximity.” And the more brains there are, the more solutions. This is why, over time, people in market economies produce more things while using fewer resources per unit of output. Corn growers now produce five or six times more output on the same plot of land as a century ago while using less fertilizer and pesticide than a few decades ago.
Fourth, the Ehrlichs and other pessimists also fail to understand the uniquely beneficial roles played by prices, profits, and losses in the spontaneous and systematic generation of more sustainable — or less problematic — outcomes. When the supply of key resources fails to meet actual demand, their prices increase. This encourages people to use such resources more efficiently, look for more of them, and develop substitutes. Meanwhile, far from rewarding pollution of the environment, the profit motive encourages people to create useful by-products out of waste (our modern synthetic world is largely made out of former petroleum-refining waste products). True, in some cases dealing with pollution came at a cost — building sewage-treatment plants, for example — but these are the types of solutions only a developed society can afford.
Fifth, pessimists are also oblivious to the benefits of unlocking wealth from underground materials such as coal, petroleum, natural gas and mineral resources. Using these spares vast quantities of land. It should go without saying that even a small population will have a much greater impact on its environment if it must rely on agriculture for food, energy and fibres, raise animals for food and locomotion, and harvest wild animals for everything from meat to whale oil. By replacing resources previously extracted from the biosphere with resources extracted from below the ground, people have reduced their overall environmental impact while increasing their standard of living.
Why is it then that after two centuries of evidence to the contrary, the pessimistic narrative still dominates academic and popular debates? Why are so many authors and academics still focusing on the Malthusian collapse scenario — now bound to come from carbon dioxide emissions and the teeming populations that produce them?
The prevalence of apocalyptic rhetoric may be, arguably, due to factors ranging from financial incentives among academics and activists to behavioural heuristics that dictate why worrying is a motivator, and why even well-meaning people rarely change their mind given new evidence. Short-termism may also take some of the blame: Population control and climate activists take for granted the non-scalable benefits of a carbon-fuel economy in which large numbers of people collaborate and innovate. The cognitive biases at the root of our thinking may shape, and in the end distort, the impulse to question “consensus,” particularly in an intellectual climate lacking the motivation to achieve what social psychologist Jonathan Haidt called “institutional disconfirmation.”
Far from being the catastrophe that Thanos, the Ehrlichs and other pessimists would have us believe, population growth and carbon fuel-based development in the context of human creativity and free enterprise are the best means to lift people out of poverty, to build resilience against any climate damage that increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions might have, and to make possible a sustained reduction of humanity’s impact on the biosphere.
Pierre Desrochers, a geography professor at the University of Toronto Mississauga, and Joanna Szurmak, a doctoral candidate at York University, are the authors of Population Bombed! Exploding the Link Between Overpopulation and Climate Change.
gadgetmac said:
As you all appear to be supporters of the French militancy currently happening you'll be pleased to hear there's some climate change direct action happening right now in London.
Maybe we ARE learning from the French after all.
How the hell did you arrive at that conclusion? Maybe we ARE learning from the French after all.
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
As you all appear to be supporters of the French militancy currently happening you'll be pleased to hear there's some climate change direct action happening right now in London.
Maybe we ARE learning from the French after all.
How the hell did you arrive at that conclusion? Maybe we ARE learning from the French after all.
An action specifically coordinated to occur in the lead up to the "saving the world" COP meeting at Katowice. Such things happen every year as the NGO shepherds bring in their flocks just before the full winter sets in.
It's all very natural really. At least as a PR exercise of sorts.
I think those that glued themselves to government buildings should have been allowed at least a month to make their point - possibly longer. One feels the people inside may be sympathetic to the cause so I'm sure they would not mind staying in the office whilst the protest continued.
gadgetmac said:
As you all appear to be supporters of the French militancy currently happening you'll be pleased to hear there's some climate change direct action happening right now in London.
Maybe we ARE learning from the French after all.
i have to admit i am a great supporter of that particular french cause. we should do the same here Maybe we ARE learning from the French after all.
i might not support the cause of the london bridges lot, i do however support their right to protest.Carbon taxes will have to increase by 15x from €100 per person per year to €1,500 per year if Ireland is to meet legally-binding targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (ESRI projections in The Irish Times, 21 November 2018).
The Irish may wish to borrow some yellow eurovests from the French...or lube up and adopt the position as per the story so far in many places.
The Irish may wish to borrow some yellow eurovests from the French...or lube up and adopt the position as per the story so far in many places.
Link said:
Nick Ferrari HANGS UP on protestor after HUGE row erupts - 'You haven't got a clue!'
RADIO host Nick Ferrari ripped into the co-founder of a group which was responsible for blocking five bridges in the capital this weekend....
ClickRADIO host Nick Ferrari ripped into the co-founder of a group which was responsible for blocking five bridges in the capital this weekend....
Snip said:
Ferrari: "You know what you don't like and I appreciate that. But you haven't got a clue what you do want.”
An awkward silence was filled by a stuttering Mr Hallam: “I’ve got lots of ideas about that. I’m not going to give you my ideas.”
In response, Mr Ferrari asked: “Why?”
The confused activist replied: “We want to raise the issue.”
The radio host blasted: “Now we need the solution.”
The protester said: “I don’t think that's the issue at the moment.”
The furious radio host responded: “So you and your colleagues just want to disrupt traffic.
“You say ‘I don’t know - I’ve got no ideas really. I just want to stop you getting across a bridge.’ How puerile. How puerile you and your colleagues are.
“You’re bankrupt with ideas. You’re all about a protest.”
After this barrage, Mr Hallam just said “Ummm.”
After the protestor repeatedly threatened to hang-up, Mr Ferrari decided to cut the call short. He said: "You haven’t got a clue. I put down the phone ahead of you. Beaten you. Bad luck."
An awkward silence was filled by a stuttering Mr Hallam: “I’ve got lots of ideas about that. I’m not going to give you my ideas.”
In response, Mr Ferrari asked: “Why?”
The confused activist replied: “We want to raise the issue.”
The radio host blasted: “Now we need the solution.”
The protester said: “I don’t think that's the issue at the moment.”
The furious radio host responded: “So you and your colleagues just want to disrupt traffic.
“You say ‘I don’t know - I’ve got no ideas really. I just want to stop you getting across a bridge.’ How puerile. How puerile you and your colleagues are.
“You’re bankrupt with ideas. You’re all about a protest.”
After this barrage, Mr Hallam just said “Ummm.”
After the protestor repeatedly threatened to hang-up, Mr Ferrari decided to cut the call short. He said: "You haven’t got a clue. I put down the phone ahead of you. Beaten you. Bad luck."
turbobloke said:
Click
i see co2 is taking yet another holiday tomorrow,temps down to -7c in some uhi areas.have to admit it hasn't really lived up to its billing this year.
Snip said:
Ferrari: "You know what you don't like and I appreciate that. But you haven't got a clue what you do want.”
An awkward silence was filled by a stuttering Mr Hallam: “I’ve got lots of ideas about that. I’m not going to give you my ideas.”
In response, Mr Ferrari asked: “Why?”
The confused activist replied: “We want to raise the issue.”
The radio host blasted: “Now we need the solution.”
The protester said: “I don’t think that's the issue at the moment.”
The furious radio host responded: “So you and your colleagues just want to disrupt traffic.
“You say ‘I don’t know - I’ve got no ideas really. I just want to stop you getting across a bridge.’ How puerile. How puerile you and your colleagues are.
“You’re bankrupt with ideas. You’re all about a protest.”
After this barrage, Mr Hallam just said “Ummm.”
After the protestor repeatedly threatened to hang-up, Mr Ferrari decided to cut the call short. He said: "You haven’t got a clue. I put down the phone ahead of you. Beaten you. Bad luck."
i may have to review my support for the right to that sort of protest. i expect even the dimmest of protesters to not only know the ins and outs of what they are protesting about, but possibly have one or two suggestions for alternatives An awkward silence was filled by a stuttering Mr Hallam: “I’ve got lots of ideas about that. I’m not going to give you my ideas.”
In response, Mr Ferrari asked: “Why?”
The confused activist replied: “We want to raise the issue.”
The radio host blasted: “Now we need the solution.”
The protester said: “I don’t think that's the issue at the moment.”
The furious radio host responded: “So you and your colleagues just want to disrupt traffic.
“You say ‘I don’t know - I’ve got no ideas really. I just want to stop you getting across a bridge.’ How puerile. How puerile you and your colleagues are.
“You’re bankrupt with ideas. You’re all about a protest.”
After this barrage, Mr Hallam just said “Ummm.”
After the protestor repeatedly threatened to hang-up, Mr Ferrari decided to cut the call short. He said: "You haven’t got a clue. I put down the phone ahead of you. Beaten you. Bad luck."
i see co2 is taking yet another holiday tomorrow,temps down to -7c in some uhi areas.have to admit it hasn't really lived up to its billing this year.
gadgetmac said:
Whilst the NOAA (that's real scientists that is) say it's on target to be the 4th hottest year on record.
Who to believe???
well given i know for an absolute fact that a number representing a global temperature is a notional concept ,due to the simple facts that the water content of the atmosphere is not known to any meaningful level and there are large areas of both land and ocean (the majority of the ocean is not measured) where no temperature measurements are taken, i would have to say they are indeed talking bWho to believe???
ks maybe they were referring to gavin schmidts back garden
gadgetmac said:
Whilst the NOAA (that's real scientists that is) say it's on target to be the 4th hottest year on record.
Who to believe???
Some birds would disagree.Who to believe???
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/late-sn...
Edit to add
Interestingly I have not heard it mentioned on the BBC yet, I will not be holding my breath.
Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 21st November 18:06
gadgetmac said:
Whilst the NOAA (that's real scientists that is) say it's on target to be the 4th hottest year on record.
Who to believe???
There's your dilemma when you have favoured gurus (and their credo) alongside disfavoured gurus, while relying on predictions and belief.Who to believe???
When you understand that the record is too short to be meaningful and that there's no causality to humans in any record (including 4th hottest) it's just so-what.
Anyway - wow that's unimpressive, 4th hottest...tax gas on holiday must explain why even with higher levels of tax gas than before, it's not predicted to be the hottest on record. Only 4th hottest, Poor show.
Taking nobody's word for it while noting that credible empirical data is evidence - whereas model gigo isn't - would sort it for you but then the faith would have crumbled.
When it comes to trumpeting the nothingness of a predicted 5th / 3rd / 7th / 4th record, somebody needs to change the record.
David Attenborough takes 'people's seat' at climate change talks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...
Sir David Attenborough has said that a failure to tackle climate change will be a catastrophe for the planet.
The naturalist and broadcaster made the comments in an interview with BBC News as he took on a new UN role.
He will take up the UN's "people's seat" at the opening of crucial climate change talks in December in Poland.
It is a platform from which he will give a speech made up of submitted climate change comments from the public for world leaders.
"The people's seat is meant to represent the hundreds of millions of people are around the world whose lives are about to be affected by climate change," Sir David told BBC News.
"It will sit there to remind politicians who are working at [this] conference - and administrators and governments - that this is not a theoretical enterprise - they aren't working in a vacuum. They are dealing with real people's futures."
Sir David will take up the seat in his role giving the people's address for the opening sessions of the conference.
He is launching the campaign with a video inviting viewers to share their thoughts on climate change. Ahead of the conference, people will be invited to submit their experiences and opinions on climate change to an online poll and conversations on social media, using the hashtag #TakeYourSeat.........continues
A chance to tell him he's singing from the wrong hymn sheet
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...
Sir David Attenborough has said that a failure to tackle climate change will be a catastrophe for the planet.
The naturalist and broadcaster made the comments in an interview with BBC News as he took on a new UN role.
He will take up the UN's "people's seat" at the opening of crucial climate change talks in December in Poland.
It is a platform from which he will give a speech made up of submitted climate change comments from the public for world leaders.
"The people's seat is meant to represent the hundreds of millions of people are around the world whose lives are about to be affected by climate change," Sir David told BBC News.
"It will sit there to remind politicians who are working at [this] conference - and administrators and governments - that this is not a theoretical enterprise - they aren't working in a vacuum. They are dealing with real people's futures."
Sir David will take up the seat in his role giving the people's address for the opening sessions of the conference.
He is launching the campaign with a video inviting viewers to share their thoughts on climate change. Ahead of the conference, people will be invited to submit their experiences and opinions on climate change to an online poll and conversations on social media, using the hashtag #TakeYourSeat.........continues
A chance to tell him he's singing from the wrong hymn sheet
robinessex said:
David Attenborough takes 'people's seat' at climate change talks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...
Sir David Attenborough has said that a failure to tackle climate change will be a catastrophe for the planet.
The naturalist and broadcaster made the comments in an interview with BBC News as he took on a new UN role.
He will take up the UN's "people's seat" at the opening of crucial climate change talks in December in Poland.
It is a platform from which he will give a speech made up of submitted climate change comments from the public for world leaders.
"The people's seat is meant to represent the hundreds of millions of people are around the world whose lives are about to be affected by climate change," Sir David told BBC News.
"It will sit there to remind politicians who are working at [this] conference - and administrators and governments - that this is not a theoretical enterprise - they aren't working in a vacuum. They are dealing with real people's futures."
Sir David will take up the seat in his role giving the people's address for the opening sessions of the conference.
He is launching the campaign with a video inviting viewers to share their thoughts on climate change. Ahead of the conference, people will be invited to submit their experiences and opinions on climate change to an online poll and conversations on social media, using the hashtag #TakeYourSeat.........continues
A chance to tell him he's singing from the wrong hymn sheet
as a kid i used to idolise him. watched and read everything he did. these days not so much. i think the kindest applicable term i can think of is "gone emeritus" .https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...
Sir David Attenborough has said that a failure to tackle climate change will be a catastrophe for the planet.
The naturalist and broadcaster made the comments in an interview with BBC News as he took on a new UN role.
He will take up the UN's "people's seat" at the opening of crucial climate change talks in December in Poland.
It is a platform from which he will give a speech made up of submitted climate change comments from the public for world leaders.
"The people's seat is meant to represent the hundreds of millions of people are around the world whose lives are about to be affected by climate change," Sir David told BBC News.
"It will sit there to remind politicians who are working at [this] conference - and administrators and governments - that this is not a theoretical enterprise - they aren't working in a vacuum. They are dealing with real people's futures."
Sir David will take up the seat in his role giving the people's address for the opening sessions of the conference.
He is launching the campaign with a video inviting viewers to share their thoughts on climate change. Ahead of the conference, people will be invited to submit their experiences and opinions on climate change to an online poll and conversations on social media, using the hashtag #TakeYourSeat.........continues
A chance to tell him he's singing from the wrong hymn sheet
wc98 said:
as a kid i used to idolise him. watched and read everything he did. these days not so much. i think the kindest applicable term i can think of is "gone emeritus" .
Yes, It must be difficult when your childhood idols and all the experts and the scientific community all disagree with you and the only people that do agree with you are fringe blogs and dickymint TB and robinessex. You have to imagine they’re all wrong and you’re right despite k’now all the evidence and common sense etc.
You must wonder why they're ALL wrong though? Just a bit even?
Might be easier to recognise that you’re making a huge mistake and the entire scientific community aren’t lying/wrong/on the take and you can stop reading propaganda and enjoy watching Attenborough on the TV again?
Climate change: Warming gas concentrations at new record high
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...
Concentrations of key gases in the atmosphere that are driving up global temperatures reached a new high in 2017
Since 1990 the warming impact of these long lived gases on the climate has increased by 41%....................continues
Can they proove that ?
2017 continues the rise in concentrations of CO2 which are now 46% greater than the levels in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution.
And Armageddon didn't happen. Oh dear !!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-462...
Concentrations of key gases in the atmosphere that are driving up global temperatures reached a new high in 2017
Since 1990 the warming impact of these long lived gases on the climate has increased by 41%....................continues
Can they proove that ?
2017 continues the rise in concentrations of CO2 which are now 46% greater than the levels in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution.
And Armageddon didn't happen. Oh dear !!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff